Fetch dataset items

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. Description adds valuable behavioral details: response format (JSON in text content, pagination metadata in structured content), hard token budget, and pagination behavior. No contradiction with 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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, followed by actionable tips and return format. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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?

Tool has an output schema and the description covers the workflow, pagination metadata, and return format. It is complete for the complexity level, though it could briefly mention the dataset_id requirement. Still, the description is adequate and well-rounded.

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 50%, and description compensates by explaining key parameter usage: response_format ('summary' vs 'items'), fields projection, token budget, and pagination. It adds strategic meaning beyond schema definitions, though limit/offset/max_tokens lack explicit descriptions.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Read' + resource 'items from an actor run dataset', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like run_actor (executes) and get_run_status (status). The scope is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Start with response_format summary... then fetch items with a fields projection.' This is clear practical usage context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool comparisons, so not a full 5.

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