read_url

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose the key non-destructive trait (returns text without saving to the vault), which is valuable. However it omits failure modes an agent would need: non-HTML/JS-rendered pages, paywalls, network errors, and the fact that output is truncated at max_chars.

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 tight sentences with the primary distinction (read-only, no vault persistence) front-loaded before the use case. 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?

An output schema exists, so return format needn't be explained, and the non-persistence behavior is covered. But with 2 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no mention of truncation or retrieval failure modes, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently.

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 says nothing about either parameter. In particular max_chars (default 8000) controls truncation of the returned text, a behaviorally significant detail that is documented nowhere.

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 ('Lee una página web y devuelve su texto') plus the crucial scope boundary: it does NOT persist. It explicitly names the sibling save_url as the contrasting tool, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives both a when-to-use ('leer la documentación de un server MCP antes de proponerlo') and an explicit alternative with its selecting condition ('para guardarla, save_url'), which is the exact routing decision this tool competes with.

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