Read any Client Hub page as text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the output is 'readable text' and that the tool works for arbitrary pages. It also reinforces the read-only nature, matching the annotations without contradicting them.

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 only three sentences, leads with the core purpose, embeds examples naturally, and includes the safety note 'Read-only.' There is no redundant or filler content.

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 is simple (two params, no output schema) and annotations are strong, the description adequately covers scope, usage, and return nature. It could mention error behavior or more return details, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both 'hub' and 'path'. The description supplements this with concrete path examples ('invoices/150208512', 'appointments/2236612358') and explains when to omit 'hub', adding practical usage value beyond the schema fields.

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 verb and resource: 'Fetch any page of a Jobber Client Hub and return its readable text.' It explicitly distinguishes this tool from list siblings by stating it is for unpinned-schema detail pages and as a fallback when list tools return nothing.

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?

It gives direct usage guidance: 'Use for detail pages ... whose layout has no pinned schema, and to inspect a page when a list tool returns nothing.' This clearly tells an agent when to choose this tool over the sibling list tools, even if it doesn't name them explicitly.

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