docs_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely behavioral fact — that content is paginated by characters rather than lines or pages — but says nothing about what happens for an unknown slug, an offset past the end, or whether responses indicate truncation.

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, front-loaded with the core action and pagination trait before the example list. The example run is long but arguably earns its place as the only signal about valid slug values.

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?

No output schema exists and none of the three parameters are described in the schema, so the description should say what a page read returns (content plus whether more remains). Pagination is named but its mechanics and return shape are left to inference.

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 carry the load. The example slug list effectively documents the slug parameter, and 'character pagination' conveys the intent of offset/max_characters, but no format or default behavior is described beyond what the schema's types and bounds already show.

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+resource: reading a bundled TTCraft manual page, plus the notable trait of character-based pagination. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling docs_search, so the boundary between looking up docs and reading a page is left implicit.

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 list of example slugs (table-plan, scripting-ui, etc.) implies when the tool applies and hints at valid inputs, but there is no explicit 'use this when… / use docs_search instead when…' guidance or prerequisite statement.

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