wattpad_get_part_text

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavior: the exact markup token set, blank-line paragraph separation, lossless semantics, the lost list for unsupported formatting, and the rejection of truncated text by wattpad_update_part. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose first and detailed markup behavior explained efficiently. The final Returns line is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but it is short and does not meaningfully hurt readability.

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 full annotations, a detailed input schema, and an output schema, the description still adds the missing context: editable markup format, round-trip editing workflow, losslessness semantics, and the max_chars caveat. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 adds valuable semantics for max_chars by warning that a trimmed result cannot be used for saving, and clarifies the markup format relevant to part_id. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Lee un capitulo conservando el formato como marcas.' It clearly defines the tool as a read operation that returns editable markup, and it is obviously distinct from update/create/publish siblings.

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 gives clear workflow context: read the chapter, edit the markup text, and send it back via wattpad_update_part. It also explicitly warns that a truncated max_chars output is not safe for saving. It does not name alternatives such as preview_markup, so it falls just 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.