read_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: truncation past `max_chars` with an in-band continuation hint, the header metadata prepended to output, and an allowed-host constraint with a default. It omits auth requirements, failure/error behavior, and whether offset is pagination-stable, but the operational traits it does cover are the ones an agent needs to avoid bad calls.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and output format, then behavior, then input constraints. The header parenthetical is informative rather than filler; no sentence is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still names the header fields. For a read-only, 3-parameter tool it covers retrieval, continuation, and input validity adequately; only failure modes and any access prerequisites remain unaddressed.

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 compensate. It does explain `url` (valid sources, allowed hosts) and references `max_chars` and `offset` behavior (truncation and continuing with a larger offset), but the offset unit (characters vs. something else), the relationship between the two numbers, and the explicit max_chars threshold semantics are left implicit.

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 documentation page as Markdown') plus the return shape (header with publication, version, breadcrumb, source URL). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings that search, list, or return a TOC, since this retrieves a single page's 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?

Tells the agent where valid input comes from ('Reader URLs from any search result, TOC line or page link'), which implies the intended search_docs/get_toc -> read_page workflow, and constrains allowed hosts with a stated default. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or a direct pointer to the sibling that produces those URLs.

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