sac_read_fact_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Read') and states the return format ('Returns rows as JSON'), but lacks details on idempotency, permissions required, or potential side effects. The baseline is adequate for a simple read tool.

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?

The description is concise, consisting of only two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose ('Read fact data from a model') and immediately follows with supported features and output format, ensuring no wasted words.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and supported features, but it does not specify the response structure (e.g., JSON array vs. object), error handling, or pagination behavior beyond mentioning $top and $skip. It meets minimum completeness for a straightforward read tool but leaves gaps.

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 100% with each parameter described individually. The description adds value beyond the schema by grouping the OData options and explicitly stating support for $top, $skip, $filter, $select, $orderby, which frames the parameters in a standard OData context. This enhances understanding beyond the individual parameter 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?

The description clearly states 'Read fact data from a model', which precisely identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like sac_read_master_data and sac_read_audit_data by specifying 'fact data', making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sac_read_master_data or sac_read_audit_data. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context for choosing this tool, leaving the agent without decision support.

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