read_page

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the output shape (lean Markdown, main content only), link post-processing (same-site links shortened to paths, resolved against the Source line), and an auth requirement for the country parameter (SKRYP_API_KEY). It omits failure modes, rate limits, or behavior on pages that resist extraction.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's purpose in the first sentence, then a compact parameter glossary with no filler. Slightly clipped phrasing ('country: two-letter code to read the page as seen from that country') reads as notes rather than prose, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description nonetheless explains the output character and the link-resolution convention an agent needs to interpret results. What remains thin is edge-case behavior and the practical limits of the extraction.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it fully does: url is defined as http/https, focus is defined with a concrete example and its token-saving effect, links is explained in terms of what is kept vs dropped, and country is defined as a two-letter code with its credential requirement. Every one of the four parameters gains meaning absent from the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (web page) plus the transformation applied: lean Markdown, main content only, minimal tokens. An agent immediately knows what it gets back and how it differs from a generic fetch.

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 are no sibling tools, so the only routing guidance needed is parameter-level, and it does supply some: focus 'saves most of the page's tokens', links=false keeps text but drops addresses. It never states when this tool is inappropriate (e.g. non-HTML, JS-heavy pages, or pages behind auth), leaving usage only implied.

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