Seattle Data Get Reference

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the no-argument default returns the index, and the reference is organized into named sections that can be drilled into by topic/item_id.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences plus a single example line; the content list is front-loaded and every clause carries information (what is retrievable, default behavior, worked example). No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and zero required parameters, the description does not need to explain return shapes. It covers content scope, default behavior, and parameterization adequately; only an explicit pointer away from the dataset siblings would make it fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the enum values are self-explanatory, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an illustrative example ({"topic": "soql", "item_id": "dates"}) that demonstrates the two-level topic→item lookup semantics, which is a genuine increment over the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Read') and a well-scoped resource ('the server's reference'), then enumerates exactly what the reference contains: capability summary, SoQL help, dataset guides, and error catalog. This clearly separates it from the dataset-oriented siblings (search/describe/query), which operate on data rather than documentation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Call with no arguments for the index' plus a concrete call example tells the agent how to enter the reference at two levels (index vs. specific item). It gives clear context for use but never explicitly contrasts itself with alternatives such as seattle_data_describe_dataset, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.