safari_read_page

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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that it reads page text (title, URL, body text) and that selector targets a specific element, and maxLength limits output. However, it does not disclose error handling, return format details beyond 'text content', or behavior when no selector is provided. This is adequate for a read-only tool but lacks depth.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, then gives usage context, a pointer to an alternative, and brief notes on parameters. Each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The description provides enough context for a typical read operation. It explains what is read, when to use it, and mentions the parameters. It does not detail return values or edge cases, but given the tool's straightforward nature and the comprehensive schema, it is sufficiently complete. Minor gaps exist regarding behavior without a selector.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters (receipt, selector, maxLength) with 100% coverage. The description reiterates the selector and maxLength usage but adds no fundamentally new information beyond the schema. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Read page text content (title, URL, body text)'. It specifies the verb 'read' and the resource 'page text content' with details on what is read. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use for reading article text or page content') and when to prefer an alternative ('For interacting with elements, prefer safari_snapshot (gives ref IDs)'). It does not enumerate all alternatives, but the key distinction is clear.

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