read_page

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the return is a real image, not extracted text, which is the key trait an agent needs. It does not mention size limits, resolution, or failure modes.

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 sentences, front-loaded purpose followed by the critical parameter clarification. No filler, though it is slightly terser than ideal given the undocumented version_id.

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 usefully discloses that the return is an image, which an agent needs to interpret the result. However, it omits what version_id refers to and how to obtain it, leaving one of two required parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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%, so the description must carry the full burden. It does an excellent job on 'page' (1-based PDF page order, not printed page number), which is a real trap, but leaves 'version_id' entirely unexplained, so half the parameters remain opaque.

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+resource ('returns the raw PDF page or image as a real MCP image') and clearly distinguishes itself from text-returning siblings like read_document by emphasizing it returns visual page content. The verification use cases (formulas, charts, two-column, OCR errors) sharpen the purpose, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 clear usage context — use it to verify formulas, charts, two-column layouts and OCR errors that text extraction would miss. It does not name an alternative tool to prefer instead, so it stops short of the explicit when-not guidance required for a 5.

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