Read a passage

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: a 200-line ceiling, numbered output for citation, a next_start_line cursor for paging, and removal of Gutenberg license header/footer.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: the core action and addressing modes come first, then the output/paging contract, then the header-footer cleanup. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is not strictly required, yet the description still explains numbering and the paging cursor. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation, though a pointer to when to choose this over its siblings would make it fully sufficient.

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 100%, so id, chapter, start_line and max_lines are already fully documented, including the chapter/start_line exclusivity. The description restates the chapter-or-line choice and the line cap but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (read) and resource (a Project Gutenberg book) plus the two addressing modes (chapter or line number) and a hard size cap. It clearly distinguishes a reading operation from the search/list siblings, though it never names an alternative tool to route away from.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'read by chapter or by line number' tells the agent which parameter style to pick, and the schema clarifies not to combine them. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_book or find_in_book, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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