fgis_read_dataset_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'bounded character pages' indicates pagination behavior and 'no network' indicates offline operation. It does not disclose details like whether offset/limit are required or how page boundaries behave, but it adds some value beyond 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and key constraints. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though it could add a bit more parameter context without becoming bloated.

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 read-only paginated tool with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks explicit guidance on parameter semantics and does not mention return format or how to use offset/limit effectively. Given the 0% schema coverage and no output schema, a bit more detail would be warranted.

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 of explaining parameters. The description mentions 'bounded character pages' which hints at limit/offset semantics, but it does not explain dataset_id or document_id, nor does it clarify how limit/offset interact with the pagination. With 0% coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('saved complete source JSON/technical parts') and adds a scoping constraint ('in bounded character pages; no network'). It is clear enough to distinguish from generic read tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 implies usage for reading saved source JSON/technical parts without network access, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like fgis_read_document or fgis_browse_source, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.

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