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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, the description adds a new behavioral detail: 'Returns plain text content by default.' This informs the agent of the output format without relying on schema inspection. It does not discuss edge cases like invalid IDs, but that is minor given annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and key usage context are front-loaded, followed by the default return behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the purpose, usage context, and default return format. It does not describe error behavior or the exact structure of the returned output, but given no output schema and the simplicity of the operation, this is acceptable.

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%, with each parameter documented (journalId, pageId, formatAsText). The description mentions plain text default, which overlaps with the schema's formatAsText explanation, adding no new parameter-level meaning. Thus the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Get a specific page from a journal') and identifies the resource (page within a journal). It also distinguishes itself from retrieving the whole journal by noting the multi-page scenario, making it clear how this tool differs from sibling tools like journal-get.

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 'Useful when you only need one page from a multi-page journal' gives a clear context for use. It implies the alternative of retrieving the full journal, though it does not explicitly name that sibling tool or state when not to use it.

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