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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds behavior not derivable from them: body truncation at 12,000 characters, per-run vs newest-copy selection, 404 semantics for unstored URLs, and the guarantee that it never hits the network. That is meaningful operational detail for an agent deciding how to source a page.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns before routing guidance, and every clause carries information (scope, alternatives, cost, failure mode). The opening sentence is dense with an inline parenthetical and a list, which slightly taxes readability, but there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does so by enumerating the returned sections and their truncation behavior. Combined with the routing rules and 404 case, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly without opening a sibling.

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 schema already documents url, run_id, and project_id with their formats and sourcing. The description reinforces the distinction between a run-specific copy and 'the newest copy across the project's recent runs' via 'its versions across runs', but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks.

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 one page a project run stored, in full') and immediately enumerates what the payload contains: markdown bodies (capped at 12,000 chars), head fields, extracted fields, and versions across runs. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming search_pages/list_pages, get_job, and extract_url with the exact conditions that select each.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Use it when you know the page's URL'), explicit prerequisites (list_pages or search_pages finds the URL first), and explicit alternate routes for crawl_site crawls (get_job with url) and live copies (extract_url). It also states the failure case: a URL the run did not store answers 404.

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