See a page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: very tall pages arrive as overlapping parts, all parts must be read, and the repeated boundary line should be counted once — information found nowhere in the schema. It stops short of describing image format or resolution, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the selection rule, then the multi-part caveat. Every sentence carries distinct, needed information; 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?

With safety covered by annotations, all three params documented in schema, and no output schema, the description supplies the remaining missing pieces: that the return is an image and how multi-part results should be reassembled. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining why 'part' exists and how parts relate (overlapping, with a shared repeated line), which the schema's terse 'which part to show' does not convey.

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 ('See one page as an image') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling read_note by naming what that tool omits. An agent can tell exactly what this returns without opening the 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?

Explicitly names the use case (handwriting, drawings, layout) and the alternative it supersedes for that content (read_note's text). The condition selecting this tool over read_note is stated, not implied.

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