read

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: boilerplate (nav, footers, cookie banners, sidebars, ads) is stripped, content is truncated at max_chars, and a continuation marker format is given verbatim. That is real added context an agent could not get from annotations alone.

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 sentences, front-loaded with output format, then exclusions, then paging. The truncation sentence is long but each clause carries operational information; nothing is redundant padding.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return format, content filtering, and pagination sufficiently to call it correctly. The unexplained semantics of 'target' and the unstated default format value are minor residual gaps.

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?

With 60% schema coverage, the description compensates well for the two most behaviorally important parameters: the max_chars truncation rule and the offset paging protocol, including the exact footer syntax. The 'target' parameter still receives no explanation of accepted values, which is the main remaining gap.

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 opens with a concrete statement of the resource returned: page (or target) main content as markdown. That clearly separates it from siblings like snapshot or screenshot, though the tool name 'read' alone would be ambiguous without it. It stops short of naming a sibling 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?

Usage is only implied by the mention of 'target' and the offset paging hint; there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of snapshot, find, or evaluate. An agent must infer that this is the tool for readable page text rather than DOM structure.

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