Read Decision Package

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

Annotation Contradiction: the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description says 'each page read is journaled onto the run,' which is a state change. This directly contradicts the read-only hint. The description is otherwise transparent about auth errors, but the contradiction is severe because it makes the tool's side effects falsely appear harmless.

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 structured with clear USE WHEN, NOT FOR, ARGS, and AUTH sections, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every section carries necessary operational detail and there is no filler or redundant repetition.

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 paginated read tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates: it describes what the page contains, the first page's source document list, the special mining_round package shape, pagination flow, and auth/error behavior. An agent has enough information to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds little. The ARGS section restates parameter names without adding new semantic meaning beyond the schema; 'Copy evidence locators verbatim' is a usage note rather than parameter semantics.

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 and resource: 'Read one page of a claimed decision task's frozen input package' and explicitly distinguishes itself from listing tasks with 'NOT FOR: ... listing tasks (talonic_list_decision_tasks).' This makes the tool's unique purpose immediately clear.

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 gives explicit usage timing: 'after a successful claim, walking pages from package.first_cursor while pagination.has_more is true.' It also states exclusions (unclaimed tasks, listing tasks) and auth requirements, so the agent knows exactly when and when not to call this tool.

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