Read a page or source

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description adds important behavior beyond the schema: long files are returned in 8000-character parts and the response indicates which offset to use next. It does not cover error behavior for missing pages, but the pagination disclosure is meaningful.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core read operation, then adds pagination behavior, then a concrete example. It is short with no filler, and each sentence contributes useful invocation detail.

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?

For a read-only tool with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the important operational details: accepted name formats, special targets, chunked reads, and offset continuation. Nothing critical for correct invocation 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 parameters are already documented. The description still adds value by clarifying that 'name' can be a page title, "raw/<source>", "index", "log", or "SCHEMA", and by explaining that the offset should come from the reply's next-offset guidance.

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, 'Read', and names the exact resources: a wiki page by title, a raw source as "raw/<name>", or the special targets "index", "log", and "SCHEMA". This is concrete enough that an agent can distinguish it from siblings like wiki_search or wiki_list without opening schemas.

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 description explains the contexts in which this tool is used and gives the exact name formats for pages, raw sources, and special wiki files. It does not explicitly state when to prefer wiki_search, wiki_list, or wiki_get_info instead, so the routing guidance is clear but not fully comparative.

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