read_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so reasonably: it discloses that form-field text and hidden elements are excluded, that output follows reading order, and that the tool is a read operation requiring no screenshot. It omits things like permission or rate-limit considerations, but for a read-only page dump the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then when to use, then a behavioral exclusion, then the parameter. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still characterizes the content and its ordering. Combined with the parameter range/default and the exclusion rules, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it fully documents the single parameter: max_chars is explained as 'how much text to return, 200 to 20000 (default 5000)', including valid range and default. The stated default matches the schema, leaving no ambiguity.

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 (Read) and resource (the current page), and enumerates the exact payload: URL, title, and visible text in reading order. An agent knows precisely what this returns and how it differs from navigate and click, which only alter page state.

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 says 'Use it after navigate or click to see what is on screen' and notes no screenshot is needed, which is clear context for invocation. It stops short of naming when *not* to use it or citing a concrete alternative sibling, so it doesn't reach the top tier.

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