dt3_read_texts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: output is bounded by both a record count and a total character budget, and there is a resumption mechanism ('use next to resume exactly'). It does not say what happens when the budget is exhausted mid-list or whether truncation is flagged, which keeps it below a 5.

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, front-loaded with scope then guidance, with no filler. The middle clause ('Use next to resume exactly; next_offset continues one document') is terse to the point of being cryptic, since neither name appears in the input schema, which slightly undercuts the efficiency it gains.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the safety annotations cover permissions. Still, for a four-parameter bulk-read tool with zero schema coverage the description leaves key semantics undefined: what 'limit' governs, how the character budget interacts with the record cap, and whether partial results are indicated. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 carries the whole burden for four parameters. It conveys the record-count bound ('up to 100 records'), the character budget (max_total_characters), and offset-style continuation ('next_offset continues one document'). But it never explains 'limit', which is a per-document character cap and could easily be mistaken for a record count — a costly ambiguity given the 0% coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read bounded indexed text'), quantifies the scope ('up to 100 records in one call'), and names the constraint ('capped by a total character budget'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling dt3_read_text, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects this tool: 'Prefer this over repeated dt3_read_text calls for bulk review.' That is clear routing guidance. However, it offers no when-not guidance (e.g., when a single-document read is better) and the resumption advice references 'next'/'next_offset' whose relationship to the documented 'offset' parameter is left implicit.

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