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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety/behavior burden. It discloses that the tool returns the full, unparaphrased body text ('from beginning to end'), which is a meaningful behavioral guarantee. It does not mention read-only status, error behavior, or page size limitations, so it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the use-case context in the second sentence. 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?

Given a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the what, when, and why. It doesn't specify the exact return format, but for a simple full-text retrieval tool the description is sufficient. A 4 reflects minor missing details like error handling or pagination.

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%, and the description adds no information about the url parameter beyond what the schema already provides ('URL or path, Japanese ok'). Baseline score 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 ('returns the body text') and resource ('Yomitas page'), and frames the use case (verifying TOS/privacy policy/instructions without paraphrasing). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools list_pages, search_pages, and site_overview, which enumerate or summarize rather than return full content.

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 description explicitly says when to use this tool: when you need to accurately verify the exact wording of terms, privacy policies, or usage steps. It does not, however, state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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