get_announcement_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that `page_count` defaults to 3 and max 5, and that `start_page` is 1-based. However, it does not disclose behaviors like what happens on invalid parameters, error handling, or the structure of the returned page content. The instruction 'Do not pre-check file existence' hints at potential failure 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 well-structured with a main sentence, followed by a clear strategy section, critical rules, and an args list. It is concise (few lines) and front-loaded, with every sentence providing useful information.

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 presence of an output schema (as indicated by context signals), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks information on edge cases (e.g., page out of range) and the implication of 'Do not pre-check file existence' suggests potential failure scenarios that are not elaborated. Overall, it is mostly complete for the tool's moderate complexity.

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 add meaning. It explains each parameter: `local_key` as 'Bundle key', `start_page` as '1-based start page', and `page_count` with its default and max. This adds value beyond the schema's property titles, though it assumes knowledge of what a 'bundle key' is.

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 starts with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve full page content for a range of pages from a parsed announcement.' This distinguishes the tool from siblings like `keyword_search` or `download_hkexnews_announcement` which have different purposes.

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 includes a dedicated <strategy> section that explicitly states when to use this tool ('Directly invoke after keyword_search provides a start_page') and what not to do ('Do not pre-check file existence'). The <critical_rules> further clarifies that `page_count` has a default and max, and prefers using `keyword_search` for facts.

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