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 nonetheless adds useful behavior the annotations cannot express: the page is private, access requires the owner's own link, and the output is rendered as plain text. It does not mention failure behavior if the link is invalid or expired.

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 purpose and output format before the input constraint. Every sentence carries a distinct instruction and none is redundant padding.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output form, and the one non-obvious access constraint. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, and the description genuinely adds meaning beyond it: the link belongs to the person, only they have it, it must be pasted by them, and it must never be guessed. That is substantive constraint semantics rather than a restatement of the schema text.

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 (Reads) and resource (a private plan page on shurco.ai) plus the output form (as plain text), so the agent knows what it gets back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling open_plan_page, which is the closest alternative, so an agent must infer the difference rather than being told.

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 clear situational framing ('so you can explain it to the person it belongs to') and a concrete operational rule for obtaining the input link (ask the person to paste it, never guess). It stops short of naming when to prefer read_plan_page over open_plan_page or ask_alexey_on_plan_page.

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