object_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld. Beyond that, the description discloses the refresh round-trip to the server and that output is paginated JSON text, which annotations do not cover and which matters for callers handling large payloads.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the identifier contract, then refresh, then return shape. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations covering pagination, an agent still lacks details on how offset/max_characters interact (truncation and continuation), and whether table_id is required in multi-table sessions. Adequate but not complete for the tool's complexity.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate and it partially does: it clarifies refresh semantics and implies pagination (offset/max_characters) via 'Returns paginated JSON text'. But offset, max_characters truncation behavior, and table_id versus the active connected table are not explained in prose.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Read one object') plus the two identifier forms accepted. It is clearly distinct from objects_list and docs_read, though it never explicitly names a sibling or states the read-vs-list boundary.

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?

'refresh asks the server for current properties' implies when to set refresh=true, but there is no guidance on when to use this over objects_list, objects_patch, or state_read, and no stated prerequisites.

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