Collect pages for a report

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: result ordering ("oldest to newest") and that page_ids overrides scope filters. It stays silent on truncation limits (max_chars_per_page, max_images_total budgets) that materially shape what comes back.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by ordering and the invocation rule. No filler or restatement of 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?

Enough to call the tool at a basic level, but for an 11-parameter aggregation tool with no output schema, the description should state that results are capped/truncated and how scope parameter precedence works. As-is, an agent can invoke it but cannot predict result completeness.

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?

With 11 parameters and only 36% schema description coverage, the description needed to carry significant weight but covers little: it hints at image inclusion and vague "scope with filters", without explaining section_id vs notebook_id precedence, title_contains, modified_before, image_max_px, or the char/image budget parameters. Most of the ambiguous surface is undocumented in both places.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: "Reads many pages at once (text, optionally with images)", plus the output purpose (summaries and reports). This distinguishes it implicitly from single-page reading and search siblings, but no sibling tool is ever named, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 a concrete usage context ("for summaries and reports") with a worked example ("all pages in a section modified this week") and states the two invocation modes: page_ids or a scope with filters. It never says when NOT to use it or names the alternative tools for single-page or list-only needs, so no exclusions are present.

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