Get multiple Magic Lane documentation pages

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), it discloses the per-URL failure model, the aggregate error condition (error only if every page failed), the shared 120000-character text cap, and truncation reporting — exactly the operational detail annotations cannot carry. The clause about '256 values or more is refused outright, without naming it' is opaque and adds confusion rather than usable behavior information.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its size limit, then return shape, then truncation — a logical order with little waste. The garbled '256 values' clause costs it, since it consumes a sentence without conveying an actionable rule.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by describing the return value (markdown per page), partial-failure reporting, the all-failed error condition, and the shared character budget. An agent can call this correctly and interpret every outcome without further documentation.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents URL format, maxItems 20, and length bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the 20-URL limit rather than adding new meaning about the array's contents or ordering; the minimum viable baseline of 3 applies.

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 first clause gives a specific verb, resource, and scope: fetch up to 20 Magic Lane documentation pages in one call, which is clearly distinguishable from the single-page sibling read_doc and the listing/search siblings. It also names read_doc as the continuation path for truncated pages, so an agent can place the tool precisely.

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?

Usage is clearly implied and scoped: batch fetch up to 20 URLs, then fall back to read_doc to continue a truncated page. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' statement against search_docs, find_across_sdks, or list_docs, so routing among the discovery tools is left partly to inference.

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