sbis_fetch_all

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint already declared, the description adds meaningful traits: cursor/offset/last_id/page styles are handled automatically, cursor fields are managed on the caller's behalf, and max_items enforces a context-protecting cap with a truncation signal. These are behavioral facts not derivable from 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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior, then pagination styles, then a compact Args list and return shape. Almost every line earns its place; only the explicit return-shape summary is arguably redundant given the output schema exists.

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 7-parameter auto-pagination wrapper, the description covers the operation contract, the managed pagination behavior, the safety cap, and the truncation semantics. An output schema exists, so the added return-shape line is supplementary rather than necessary, but nothing critical is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it largely succeeds: it explains operation_id (a catalog read endpoint), query/body/path_values (base params with cursor fields managed), items_path (override of the auto-derived array path), and the limit/max_items roles with defaults. Minor gaps remain around units/format details, but the intent of every parameter is conveyed.

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?

States a specific verb and outcome ('Auto-paginate a read endpoint and return every row in one response'), which clearly distinguishes it from single-call siblings like sbis_call_method. It does not, however, name those siblings directly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by 'a read endpoint from the catalog' and the auto-pagination framing, which suggests this is for endpoints that would otherwise need manual paging. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as sbis_call_method or sbis_call_raw.

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