read_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the fallback chain (stealth browser, then Wayback Machine), truncation behavior tied to max_chars, the shape of the return (title, final URL, fetch method), and an explicit prompt-injection warning about untrusted content. These are exactly the traits an agent cannot get from the schema.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place, with the core purpose front-loaded and the safety warning placed last for emphasis. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

Covers formats, fallback behavior, truncation, and security posture, which is everything needed to call it correctly despite an output schema already covering return values. Nothing material is left unstated.

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. It explains max_chars semantics (text over it is cut with a note) and implies url must be a public page, but adds no format/syntax detail for the url parameter and never mentions the 8000 default.

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 and resource ('Read a public web page') and enumerates the supported content types (HTML, PDF, plain text, JSON), so an agent knows exactly what it fetches. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling web_search, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is for retrieving one known URL while web_search finds URLs, but the description never says when to prefer one over the other. It does describe when the fallback chain kicks in ('hard pages'), which is useful conditional context.

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