read_api

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful return semantics: one unflattened JSON:API page with relationships, included resources, pagination links, and base64 binary reports. It still omits auth, rate-limit, and error behavior, so 4 rather than 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then return shape, pagination, and binary handling. Every sentence adds information with no redundant restatement.

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?

Covers return shape and pagination for a read tool with no output schema, while annotations cover the safety profile. It still lacks discovery-flow and error/auth context, but the schema covers most parameter details, making this nearly complete.

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 coverage is 75%, and the schema already documents operationId, path, and body. The description adds pagination cursor guidance from links.next but does not explain operationId sourcing or path/body semantics. 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?

States a specific verb and resource: execute an official Apple GET operation. It also specifies the return shape and pagination behavior. It implicitly separates reads from write_api via GET but does not name sibling tools, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Says to execute after schema validation and explains how to page using links.next. However, it gives no explicit when-not-use guidance or alternatives such as search_api_operations, get_api_operation, or write_api. Usage is only implied by the GET framing.

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