published

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: a hard 50-result cap, key-sorted ordering, glob matching semantics, and the shape of each returned value (unit, published rounding, interval, display string).

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 dense sentences with no filler; the core action and scope lead, and the return-value detail follows. Nothing repeats the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so describing return values was optional but adds useful orientation; the glob semantics and limit make invocation unambiguous. The remaining gap is the unlabeled warehouse enum and the absent comparison to sibling retrieval tools.

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 carries the burden. It handles key_or_pattern well — exact key, glob syntax with a concrete example, and the result cap. It says nothing about the warehouse parameter beyond implying it selects a manifest, leaving the three enum values (doorstep, turnaround, ledger) undifferentiated.

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 resource: read values from a warehouse's published manifest, with a clarifier ('the numbers its own documents print') that pins down what 'published' means. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like readback, lookup, or run_sql, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told.

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?

Retrieval mechanics are clear (exact key or glob such as ch5.*, capped at 50, sorted by key), which implies the usage pattern. But there is no statement of when to choose this over readback, lookup, search_catalog, or run_sql, and no excluded cases (e.g., values that were never published).

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