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. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral content: output is scoped to visible text plus links (not raw HTML or scripts), and a sibling mode ('find') returns only surrounding passages. It stops short of disclosing failure modes for unreachable, paywalled or JS-rendered pages.

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?

The core is front-loaded and efficient, but the closing sentence ('A value that is a URL (website_url, registration_url) can be shown by a link: quote the sentence that holds it') is syntactically tangled and reads as guidance about the correction workflow rather than about this tool. It costs clarity in a description that is otherwise tight.

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 only two parameters, full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what comes back (visible text and links), what 'find' narrows, and the main use case. It leaves out edge-case behavior for blocked or non-public pages, which is the remaining gap for an openWorld fetcher.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters. It explains 'find' well ('returns only the passages around that text'), but 'url' is only implied by the opening sentence — no statement that it must be an absolute public URL or what happens with non-public targets. Partial compensation for a two-parameter schema lands at the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') on a specific resource ('a public web page') and goes further to state the exact output shape: 'its visible text and its links.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing the read as 'the way this server reads it when it checks a quote,' which is a sharper identity than a generic page fetcher.

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?

It gives two concrete triggering situations: 'Use it before propose_correction to copy an exact quote' and 'to read a race page your own tools cannot open,' the latter implicitly distinguishing it from get_race. It does not explicitly rule out other siblings (search_races, query) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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