read_documentation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: URL domain and format requirements, handling of long documents via truncation and chunking, and output format details (markdown with preserved structure). It could improve by mentioning rate limits or authentication needs, but covers core operational behavior well.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Usage, URL Requirements, Example URLs, Output Format, Handling Long Documents) and front-loads the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the 'Handling Long Documents' section is somewhat verbose. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no wasted text.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage constraints, URL requirements, examples, output format, and handling of edge cases (long documents). With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values, and it adequately compensates for the lack of annotations.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions start_index for chunking and max_length for truncation in the 'Handling Long Documents' section, but doesn't provide additional semantic context. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Fetch and convert an AWS documentation page to markdown format.' It specifies the exact action (fetch and convert), resource (AWS documentation page), and output format (markdown). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_documentation' by focusing on retrieving specific pages rather than searching.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for AWS documentation pages from docs.aws.amazon.com ending with .html. It also offers alternatives for handling long documents (continue reading with start_index or stop early) and implicitly contrasts with 'search_documentation' by focusing on fetching specific URLs rather than searching.

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