api_document_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the non-obvious pagination protocol, telling the agent how to iterate until exhaustion. It does not disclose page shape or whether empty pages can occur mid-stream, and 'nextOffset' does not correspond to any field name in the schema, which may confuse an agent looking for that key.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the core action and pagination instruction front-loaded ahead of the sibling exclusion. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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, three-parameter paged listing with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose, paging, and routing. It is not complete, however, on the required documentId's format and provenance, which is the one thing an agent can get wrong when invoking it.

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 bears the burden; it only partially compensates by implying limit/offset paging through 'in pages' and 'nextOffset'. It never explains that documentId is a 64-character hex identifier or where that value comes from, leaving the required parameter undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 imported API operations and schemas' — rather than restating the tool name, and it distinguishes the scope from prose/PDF content ingested elsewhere. It stops short of naming api_document_import as the producer of the documentId, so the agent must infer where the id originates.

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?

'Requirements/PDF prose use requirements_import instead' is an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it, which is exactly the sibling-routing guidance most definitions lack. It also gives the pagination loop ('Follow nextOffset until null'), though it offers no when-not guidance beyond the prose exclusion.

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