fgis_read_norm

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns 'work steps and original resource quantities', which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not disclose pagination behavior or what happens when the code is not found, but the annotations lower the burden.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the resource and the key included content. It is efficient and avoids redundancy with the schema. It could add a bit more detail about parameters 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 tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, with 0% schema coverage and three parameters, it should explain limit/offset and possibly the return format. The core purpose is clear, but an agent might not know how to paginate or what the response contains beyond the mentioned fields.

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 compensate for the three parameters. It explains the 'code' parameter implicitly (the norm code to read) but says nothing about 'limit' and 'offset' semantics. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 ('exact bare norm code online'), and adds scope details ('work steps and original resource quantities') that distinguish it from generic read tools. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the phrase 'exact bare norm code' implies a precise lookup distinct from search_norms or read_document.

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: use this when you need the exact norm code content, not search results or documents. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like fgis_search_norms or fgis_read_document. The context is clear enough for a basic read operation but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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