research_open_document

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

Annotations already establish a safe, open-world read, yet the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: a three-file attempt cap, up to two extra six-page ranges per PDF, no OCR, truncation/scan status in readingCoverage, and explicit caveats that heuristics are not semantic verification and evidence needs_review is not verified relevance. This is unusually rich disclosure of limits.

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?

The core action is front-loaded, but the remainder is a dense, run-on block that interleaves execution heuristics, interpretation warnings, and output description without separation. Most sentences carry information, so it is not padding, but the lack of structure makes it hard to parse.

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 no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating the return payload (attempts, labelled excerpts, organizations, budget context notes, remaining files, readingCoverage, field quotes, page locations, original links) and warning against claiming an embedded preview. The only notable gap is the undocumented required url parameter.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it only clarifies one of two parameters ('Pass requestedQuery with the user research intent'). The required url parameter is never explained (presumably the portal/attachment URL), leaving half the input undocumented.

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?

The opening clause states a specific verb+resource (read portal metadata and its plan/budget attachments) and adds the distinctive research behavior of trying up to three files. It is distinguishable from the plain read_open_document sibling by the prioritization/heuristic framing, though it never names that sibling or states the contrast explicitly.

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?

Usage is heavily implied through context ('Follows an explicit Seoul disclosure link', 'Pass requestedQuery with the user research intent') but no alternative tool is named and no when-not condition is given. The 'supporting_document is not a primary case' line is a classification rule for the caller, not tool-selection guidance.

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