Read text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation and discloses extraction behavior (main/article preference, ref narrowing) and long-output handling, but says nothing about failure modes, auth, or performance characteristics.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core purpose leads and routing hints follow. Telegraphed style costs it a point on readability but wastes nothing.

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 does describe what comes back (body text, main/article) and mentions pagination for long output. For a single-required-parameter read tool with fully documented schema, this covers what an agent needs.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only modestly adds value: 'With ref, only that element's text' restates the schema, while 'Use page for long text' gives the rationale for the page parameter.

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 ('Reads the page body text') with a scoping qualifier (main/article if present) and a ref-based narrowing. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling browser_snapshot, which it explicitly names as the heavier alternative.

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?

Names the alternative (snapshot) and the condition that selects this tool ('articles/documents'), plus a follow-up routing hint for long output ('Use page'). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough to choose correctly.

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