Load another candidate page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the constraint that the result set must already exist and be complete, but gives no detail on cursor behavior, invalid inputs, or page contents. No contradiction found.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core concept of pagination. 'App-only' is a slightly unclear qualifier, but the overall structure wastes no words.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and strong annotations, but the description omits essential context: how the resultSetId is acquired (e.g., from figure_library_search), how the cursor is obtained, and what 'App-only' means. With no output schema, some return behavior should be clarified.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it only vaguely references the result set and pagination. It does not explicitly explain that resultSetId identifies the prior search result set or how cursor is obtained/used, relying on self-evident parameter names.

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 identifies the tool as pagination over an existing complete search result set, which distinguishes it from the sibling figure_library_search tool. However, 'App-only' is vague and not explained, so it does not fully qualify as a 5.

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 phrase 'existing complete search result set' implies the tool is for paging through results already obtained, but it does not explicitly say to use this after figure_library_search or mention any exclusions/alternatives. Usage context is only implied.

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