Read bounded cross-plugin responses

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: the 5 MiB combined cap, the 1–20 task bound, absence of pagination/cookies/uploads, and a privacy warning that records may contain personal data.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the core read scope front-loaded and the constraints trailing. Dense but not wasteful; there is a minor typo ('at most5 MiB') but no filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to state the combined response bound and privacy caveat, which is the key return-value information. It could say more about per-task error handling, but it is largely complete for a bounded read tool.

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 two parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the 1–20 bound and 'exact private site profile' intent but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (prevalidate/read 1–20 native reads) against a named resource set (CRM/Community/Forms responses) for an exact private site profile. It is distinguishable from siblings like preview_site_batch and save_site_snapshot, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 scope (one exact private site profile, 1–20 tasks) and exclusions ('no auto-pages... uploads or atomic provider snapshot'), which imply the intended use. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over preview_site_batch or submit_site_batch, leaving the main routing decision to inference.

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