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, and the description reinforces read-only without contradicting them. It adds context that the tool returns readable text and is suited for schema-less pages, which goes beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the core purpose is stated first and the usage guidance second. Every clause earns its place, and the example paths are concrete and illustrative.

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?

For a read-only page fetcher with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, when to use it, and what it returns. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the clear statement that it returns readable text, and the annotations cover safety.

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 already describes both parameters with examples and coverage at 100%, so the description adds little new semantic meaning. The description reinforces the path pattern with examples but does not go beyond the schema's own 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 clearly states the tool fetches any Client Hub page and returns its readable text, with concrete examples of detail page paths. This distinguishes it from the sibling list tools, which operate on specific entity types with pinned schemas.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool for detail pages without pinned schema and when a list tool returns nothing, providing clear decision criteria relative to the sibling list tools. No exclusions are needed because the alternatives are implicit from the sibling names.

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