texttv_get_page

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds context about return content (with optional plain text), but does not elaborate on error handling or response format beyond that. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., listed parameters), but it is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple get operation with two parameters, the description covers the essential information. It lacks details about error handling or non-existent pages, but given the simple nature and annotation hints, it is reasonably complete.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with full descriptions. The tool description echoes the schema's meaning ('by number' and 'optional plain text') without adding new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('SVT Text-TV page'), and the constraint ('by number 100-899'). It differentiates well from sibling tools that cover categories, news, or sports.

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 implies usage when a specific page number is known, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like texttv_search or texttv_browse_category, nor does it provide any 'when not to use' guidance.

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