Get one image page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive, repeatable operation. The description adds that it resolves to URLs and navigation links, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior when the page token is invalid. With such thorough annotations, the description adds moderate value beyond them, warranting a 3.

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 a single sentence of moderate length that front-loads the purpose and key outputs. Every part is relevant; there is no waste. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for outputs) to improve scanability for an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), a reasonable level of annotations, and 3 parameters (one complex), the description covers the core purpose and outputs. It omits edge cases (e.g., what happens if the page is unavailable or requires authentication), but overall it is sufficiently complete for a read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema.

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 33% (only the inner parameter descriptions, not the top-level ones like 'site' or 'pageUrl', have descriptions that repeat schema info). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema: 'page' object, 'site' enumerations, and 'pageUrl' alternative are already clear from the schema. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate more. It lists outputs but not which parameters are required or how to choose between 'page' and 'pageUrl'.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('one E-Hentai image page'), clearly listing the outputs (displayed image URL, original-image URL, navigation links, page keys). It distinguishes itself from the large sibling set, such as 'eh_get_gallery_pages' which retrieves multiple pages, and 'eh_get_all_gallery_pages' which is likely a batch operation.

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 that this tool is for resolving a single image page, as opposed to siblings that handle galleries, searches, or favorites. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'eh_get_gallery_pages' for all pages, or the nested parameter object indicates a single page). It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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