workiva_read_rich_text_paragraphs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Read paragraphs', implying a non-destructive operation, but does not mention return format, pagination, error behavior, or any limitations. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 description is extremely concise, with only two lines. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and the parameter documentation is brief. No waste, though the Args section adds minimal value.

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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides the basic function. However, it lacks context about how this tool relates to other rich text tools, what the output contains, or any edge cases. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The schema has only one parameter with 0% coverage from the description, so the description must compensate. The Args section notes 'rich_text_id: The richText UUID', which adds a slight clarification (UUID) beyond the schema's title but does not provide substantial additional meaning.

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 description clearly states the action ('Read paragraphs') and the resource ('rich text resource'), which is specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like workiva_rich_text or workiva_batch_edit_rich_text, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply states what the tool does without contextual information.

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