reach_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the automatic routing behavior, degradation to Jina Reader when a platform tool is missing, and the inclusion of a setup hint in meta.setup_hint. This sufficiently informs the agent of expected behavior. However, it does not mention potential side effects or idempotency, though as a read tool these are less critical.

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 a single paragraph containing dense information. While it is relatively concise given the complexity, it could be better structured with bullet points or separate sections for clarity. It is not overly verbose, but front-loading is suboptimal.

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 tool's complexity with multiple platform routings, the description covers the main behaviors and fallback. However, it lacks an output schema, so the agent is not informed about the return format or structure beyond the mention of meta.setup_hint. Some details about the Jina Reader behavior could be expanded, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 has two parameters: url (required) and max_chars (optional, default 40000). The description does not explain the max_chars parameter at all, leaving its purpose and usage unclear. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only describes the tool's behavior without parameter details. This is a significant 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Read any URL as clean text/Markdown.' It then enumerates specific platform routing behaviors, distinguishing it from sibling tools like reach_search which handles stocks. This is a specific verb+resource description that effectively differentiates.

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 clear usage context by listing the various URL types it handles (YouTube, GitHub, Hacker News, etc.) and notes a fallback to Jina Reader. It also mentions that for stock tickers, the user should use reach_search with platform=stocks on a plain URL, implicitly guiding when not to use reach_read. However, it does not explicitly compare against all siblings or state when to use alternatives.

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