read_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the tool cannot fetch arbitrary URLs and reads only already-indexed pages, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the purpose is front-loaded, the critical limitation is stated next, and the parameter explanation is brief and direct. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the prerequisite (previous search), the constraint (no arbitrary URLs), and the exact parameter expected. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 burden for parameter meaning. It does so clearly by stating that 'url' must be a canonical docs.liara.ir URL taken from a search result, which is essential information the schema alone does not provide.

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 action ('Read one whole documentation page') and a specific resource ('the local corpus'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools. The addition that only pages returned by a prior search can be fetched makes its scope unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: the URL must come from a previous search result, and no other URL can be fetched. It also explains the underlying reason (no HTTP client, only indexed content), leaving no ambiguity about when this tool applies.

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