Read a newspaper page

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), so the description's added value is the chunking behavior: long pages come back in chunks and a `truncated` flag signals when to re-call. That is a real behavioral trait not derivable from annotations or 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by the pagination caveat. No filler and nothing that fails to earn its place.

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 not be explained, and the description still adds the one thing an agent must know to drive it correctly: how to continue after a truncated response. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by tying `offset` to the truncation flow (`truncated` true -> re-call with `next_offset`), giving the parameter a purpose the schema field alone does not convey.

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 the full OCR text of one newspaper page') plus what comes with it (citation, scan/PDF links). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling search tools by being a retrieval operation, but it does not explicitly name any sibling to route against.

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?

It gives clear continuation guidance for the truncated case ('call again with offset set to next_offset'), which is genuine usage instruction. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus search_newspapers or front_pages_on_date, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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