Fetch the next page of a prior scan

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

Annotations indicate readOnly and openWorld hints, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: cursor handling, revision scoping, ETag details, pricing/free nature, and independence of counts and summaries. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 dense but each sentence contributes important operational detail. It is front-loaded with the core action and then presents necessary edge-case handling. Length is appropriate given the complexity, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 compensates by explaining the counts_by_symbol projection, full_counts behavior, and independence of page rows. It covers critical complexities like revision changes and ETags, making the tool sufficiently understandable for an agent.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description mostly reinforces these (e.g., 'SAME document', 'Never construct cursors') without adding new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's purpose: to continue a prior run_scan by re-sending the same document with the opaque cursor. It is specific and distinguishes itself from the sibling run_scan tool.

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?

It explicitly describes when to use this tool (after a prior run_scan) and provides concrete guidance, such as restarting from page 1 if X-Dataset-Revision changed, and never constructing cursors.

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