fgis_read_document

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations: 15-minute RAM cache, refresh semantics, offset as text characters, expected_sha256 integrity guarding, and no OCR for embedded images. There is no contradiction with 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 dense but purposeful; each sentence adds useful operational detail such as cache behavior, integrity checking, and OCR limitations. It is front-loaded with the core action and then provides necessary constraints. Some domain abbreviations (FSNB/FER/methods/PIR) assume prior context but are tied to browse output.

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 tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers selection, caching, freshness, integrity, offset semantics, and a key limitation (no OCR). It does not describe the return payload shape, but the 'as text' framing and offset guidance make the missing detail acceptable.

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 must carry the parameter semantics. It explains source values, document_guid usage, expected_sha256, offset units, and refresh behavior. It does not explicitly describe 'limit', but its meaning is reasonably inferable from the pagination context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the resource ('public document/technical part online as text'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly excluding dataset/disk-cache reads and pointing to the table tool for structured cell extraction.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use direction: draw document_refs from browse, use source='normative' + GUID for certain documents, and use source='fssc'/'fsem' without GUID for full documents. It also points to the table tool for tables. It does not explicitly name sibling read tools as alternatives, but the routing guidance is clear enough.

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