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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior the annotations cannot: the 8,000-character chunking model, the offset-continuation pattern, and the caveat that figures reflect the day the page was read. It says nothing about error behavior for invalid URLs or out-of-range offsets.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, front-loaded with what is returned and how it is chunked, then the use case, then the freshness caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does: page text plus sections, in 8,000-character chunks. A short note on what happens at the end of a page or on fetch failure would close the remaining gap for a simple two-parameter read tool.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description still adds value by tying `offset` to the 8,000-character chunk size and stating the follow-up intent, which clarifies how pagination works in practice beyond the schema's generic "continue from which character".

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: the text of a page from cambio-uruguay.com with its sections, returned in 8,000-character chunks. It also names the sibling it complements (search_site), so an agent can tell it apart from search_site and site_sections without opening any schema.

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?

"Para citar con precisión lo que search_site encontró" gives a clear trigger: use this after a search when exact citation is needed. It does not spell out exclusions (e.g., when site_sections or search_site would be sufficient instead), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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