page_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature (visible text), default selector behavior, and the case-insensitive filtering. It does not mention potential edge cases like empty results or timeout behavior, but for a read operation the provided transparency is strong.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, options are listed compactly, and the usage guidance is tucked at the end. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a read-only tool without an output schema, the description explains the return type (text lines), default scoping, and filtering. It could mention that only visible text is returned (already implied) and that maxChars truncates, but that is in the schema. It's adequately complete for an agent to invoke 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 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for 'query' (filters lines, case-insensitive) and 'selector' (defaults to main/article/body), beyond the schema's brief text. It doesn't explain sessionId, but that is a common parameter across the tool family. Overall it enhances understanding.

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 action (read visible TEXT content), the resource (page), and the default scope (main/article/body). It explicitly distinguishes from page_find ('To locate a clickable element instead, use page_find'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this to search/read page DATA — content, prices, table text, does the page mention X') and when not to ('To locate a clickable element instead, use page_find'), naming the alternative tool directly.

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