web_search_read_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only says 'return the visible page text' without disclosing behaviors like JavaScript execution, error handling, or limitations (e.g., paywalls, dynamic content). This is a significant gap for a navigation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated), which reduces the need to describe return values. However, the description lacks details on error scenarios, permission requirements, or behavior with invalid URLs. It is minimally adequate for a relatively simple tool.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters (url, max_length). The description adds no extra semantic value beyond 'Navigate to a URL,' which is already implied by the tool name and schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Navigate to a URL and return the visible page text,' specifying the action (navigate, return) and resource (URL, page text). It distinguishes from siblings like 'web_search' which likely executes searches, and other tools with different scopes.

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 description includes 'Useful for reading the full content of a search result,' giving a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it scores slightly below the top tier.

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