read_view

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses row limit, default, and as_of behavior, but does not explicitly state read-only nature or potential side effects. Moderate transparency for a read operation.

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?

Description is well-structured with bullet points and clear explanations. Slightly verbose in parameter descriptions, but overall efficient and front-loaded with purpose.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return format. It covers all input parameters adequately and provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 0%, so description must fully explain parameters. It provides detailed explanations for all five parameters, including examples and constraints (e.g., count range, as_of format).

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 it returns rows from a view with a configurable count, using a specific verb ('return') and resource ('view'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_table and count_view_rows.

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 explains parameters and optional time-travel, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_sql or read_table. Usage context is implied but not exhaustive.

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