document_getPageStories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but says nothing about whether a document must be open, what happens for an out-of-range pageIndex, what the returned story objects contain, or how they are ordered.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally sized.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is too thin for an agent to call the tool correctly without trial and error, particularly around page indexing conventions.

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 only 50%: document_id is documented in the schema, but pageIndex has no description at all. The phrase 'a specific page' only weakly gestures at pageIndex and does not clarify its 0-based indexing, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') and resource ('stories that appear on a specific page') clearly state the operation. It is distinguishable in substance from text_getStories, but the description never acknowledges its near-inverse sibling document_getStoryPages, leaving the agent to infer the direction of the mapping.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus document_getStoryPages or text_getStories, no prerequisites (e.g. a document must be open), and no indication of ordering or scope of the result.

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