read_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context: it lists content types returned (text, tables, links) and includes the notable detail 'how each was obtained', indicating provenance reporting. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not disclose other traits such as page indexing or error behavior.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the key action and expected output. No extraneous information; every part adds value.

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?

Without an output schema, the descriptions lists what the call returns (text, tables, links, provenance), which helps. However, it does not mention how to configure the required parameters or any prerequisite relationship with sibling tools like probe. Given the lack of parameter documentation and no usage guidance, the description is adequate for a simple read operation but leaves several gaps an agent would need to infer.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no details about the three parameters: source, page, and password. Although the names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify what 'source' refers to (e.g., URL, file path, document ID), what format page expects, or the role of password. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 states the verb 'Read' with the resource 'one page' and enumerates the returned content: text, tables, links, and provenance. This provides a clear sense of what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like extract_tables or to_markdown, which also deal with page content extraction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use read_page versus its siblings (probe, outline, find, extract, extract_ables, to_markdown). The description implies the tool is for reading a page, but does not specify alternatives or exclusion conditions. An agent would have to infer selection criteria.

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