read_query_result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and effectively discloses pagination mechanics, return structure (hasMore, totalRows), and file dependencies. Minor gap: no mention of error handling (e.g., missing files) or file lifecycle.

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?

Well-structured with core purpose front-loaded. The example workflow efficiently illustrates the interaction pattern, and the return value documentation adds necessary context despite the presence of an output schema.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It successfully explains the relationship with `execute_dax`, pagination strategy, and provides a concrete multi-step workflow example.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It demonstrates parameter usage through the example workflow (offset=0, limit=100) and pagination context, but lacks explicit definitions for each parameter's semantics and constraints.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Read a page of rows from a CSV file') and immediately ties it to the sibling tool `execute_dax`, clearly distinguishing its purpose from other list/read tools in the suite.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger condition ('Use this tool when `execute_dax` returns a `savedTo` path instead of inline rows'), providing clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly contrasting it with the inline result alternative.

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