read_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool waits for DOM stability on JS-heavy sites, prioritizes main content over sidebars/nav/footer, caps output at ~8K chars, enforces agent-scoped tab ownership with a TAB_NOT_OWNED rejection, and supports a configurable cap (default 8, range 1-64).

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then proceeds through behavior, related tools, and multi-agent details. Every clause adds information an agent needs; there is no filler or repetition.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining the return content (main content prioritized, capped at ~8K chars), DOM-stability waiting, tab scoping, and error behavior. It gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description's tab_id guidance ('Pass tab_id only when this agent owns multiple tabs; auto-resolves otherwise') largely restates what the schema says, adding no new syntax or format detail beyond the structured field.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Read the text content of the current page.' The Related section explicitly differentiates this tool from get_dom_snapshot (structured element data), navigate (navigation), and scroll (loading more content), so an agent can distinguish it from key siblings without opening schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit usage rule: 'When to use: as the FIRST step after navigating to understand what is on the page.' It also names alternatives with their conditions (get_dom_snapshot for interaction, navigate to go to a page, scroll to load more before reading), leaving little inference for an agent.

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