get_source_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: the 1-to-5 page cap (which the schema does not enforce) and the fact that page numbers are printed-edition numbers rather than file or scan indices. It stops short of saying what happens if the range exceeds 5 or the pages are missing from the local copy.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the two most decision-relevant constraints (page cap, printed numbering) in parentheses. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety semantics. However, for a tool with three required parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the origin and format of edition_id unspecified and does not say how out-of-range or unavailable pages are handled.

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 carry the load, and it only partially does: it clarifies the page_start/page_end range semantics via "1 to 5 pages" and "printed page numbers." It says nothing about edition_id — where an agent obtains a valid value or what editions exist — which is the parameter most likely to cause a failed call.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Read") with a specific resource ("pages of a locally placed source book") and adds scoping detail (1 to 5 pages, printed page numbers). That is enough to separate it from retrieval-style siblings like search_source_pages or get_qaloun_passage, although no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase "locally placed source book" plus "printed page numbers" implies the context in which this is the right tool (as opposed to a search or app-page tool), but the description never states when to choose it over search_source_pages or analyze_app_page, and gives no preconditions such as needing a resolved edition id.

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