Read a saved page

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false). The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: that private pages are also retrievable, and that the response includes the last-fetched timestamp. It omits details like rate limits or truncation behavior (though max_chars partly covers that in the schema).

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 tight sentences with the resource and the retrieval modes front-loaded; every clause carries information and nothing is redundant with the title.

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 output schema, the description usefully sketches the return payload (markdown body plus last-fetched time) and notes private-page support. Coverage is good for a simple read tool, though it could mention whether missing/unfetched pages error or return empty.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the default truncation limit and the id provenance. The description restates the id/url sourcing rather than adding syntax or edge-case detail, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get the clean markdown of one saved nectr page') and clarifies the two addressing modes (id or original URL). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from search_library and convert_url by naming them as id sources.

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?

Gives clear context for how to obtain the identifiers ('id from search_library or convert_url', 'URL if the id is not known'), which tells the agent when this tool is applicable. It stops short of explicit exclusions or stating when to prefer one identifier over the other beyond the fallback hint.

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