read_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the 1 Web Speed credit cost, the WEBSPEED_API_KEY requirement, and the type-aware JSON return format. It doesn't explicitly state that it's read-only, but 'extract' implies non-destructive, which adds context beyond typical minimal descriptions.

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 description is concise and well-structured. It starts with the primary action, uses a clear bulleted list for output types, and ends with cost/auth requirements. Every sentence adds value without fluff.

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?

For a simple one-param tool with an output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains the API source, return format, cost, and auth. The only notable gap is the lack of page_type parameter explanation, but the optional nature and default 'auto' mitigate this. Overall, it's nearly comprehensive.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'page_type' parameter at all. The output types (article, product, etc.) hint at possible values, but there is no explicit mapping or guidance on how page_type affects the extraction, leaving the agent to guess.

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 clearly states the tool extracts structured data from the current page, with specific output types. It is a clear, specific verb+resource, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_page_info or evaluate.

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 implies usage—when you need structured data from a page—but doesn't provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. The output type examples give some context, but no exclusions.

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