read_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the page slug comes from module items; it does not mention required permissions, whether the page is published, or rate limits. With annotations covering behavior, the bar is lower, but the description still adds minimal beyond the slug-source note.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The key scope constraint ('from module items') is placed at the end but remains clear and compact.

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 two-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not explain what a 'page slug from module items' concretely means, how to obtain it, or what the returned page contains, and courseId semantics are absent.

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 schema provides types and patterns but no semantic explanation. The description partially compensates by indicating pageSlug is a 'page slug from module items', giving context for that parameter. However, courseId is left unexplained, and no format or source details beyond the slug note are provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate given limited compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

Clear verb (Read) and resource (Canvas course page) with a specific scope note ('using a page slug from module items'). This implies the slug source is a module item, distinguishing it from a generic content fetch, but doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like list_module_items or get_syllabus.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'from module items' hints at a prerequisite source, but there's no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the nine siblings.

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