read_document_bytes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes it as a safe read. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: app-only restriction, base64 chunking, and offset/length/hasMore streaming semantics. No contradiction with the annotation.

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 sentences with no filler. The core streaming behavior is front-loaded, and the use-case context is delivered in the second sentence without redundancy.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and the readOnlyHint covers safety. The description covers the access restriction, use case, and streaming behavior. The main gap is the lack of explicit uri parameter semantics, but this is minor given the output schema and simple defaults.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies the roles of offset and length through chunking, and never explains the uri parameter. This is partial guidance, not sufficient for an agent to confidently use all three parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('stream') and a concrete resource ('a fetched policy document'), and adds unique behavior details: base64 chunks, offset/length/hasMore. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like preview_pdf_pages by noting its role in rendering source docs for the claims App.

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 states the tool is App-only and used by the claims App to render source docs, giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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