get_report_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals error behavior (returning an error if file is missing, prompting download/parse) and warns about context overflow from excessive page_count. While it does not mention auth needs or rate limits, it addresses key operational risks and dependencies, going beyond a minimal description.

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 sections for strategy, critical rules, and arguments. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 5 parameters and complex usage patterns. Some redundancy exists between the strategy statement and critical rule 1 (both emphasize not using blindly and finding start_page first), but overall it is efficient and scannable.

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, the description need not explain return values. It covers usage context (when to call, prerequisites), error behavior, and page_count limits. It adequately describes all required parameters. Minor gaps include potential edge cases like invalid start_page, but these are not critical for basic invocation. The description provides enough context for successful tool selection and use.

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 provides zero descriptions for parameters (0% coverage). The description compensates fully through the 'Args' list, explaining each parameter: ticker, form, report_date (fiscal period end date), start_page (1-based), and page_count (default 3, max 5). This is exactly the meaning the schema would otherwise lack, making the tool usable.

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 clear and specific action: 'Retrieve full page content for a range of pages from a report.' It identifies the exact resource (report pages) and scope (range, continuous blocks). It also distinguishes itself from sibling keyword_search by explicitly stating that tool is for specific data points, making purpose boundaries obvious.

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 <strategy> block provides explicit guidance on when to invoke this tool ('Directly invoke this tool to retrieve large, continuous blocks of text'), when not to use it ('If looking for specific data points, use keyword_search instead'), and prerequisites ('typically called after keyword_search or get_report_toc has provided the starting page'). Critical rules reinforce the need to determine start_page first, effectively outlining the correct workflow.

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