Read page as Markdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that long content is paginated via offset/maxChars, which is useful behavioral context, but it doesn't mention whether truncation is signaled in the result or how pagination terminates.

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 tight sentences with no waste; the return format is front-loaded and pagination is mentioned last as a secondary 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 extraction tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers what comes back and the pagination mechanism. Minor gap: no note on how a truncated result is indicated, which matters when paginating.

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 100%, so all 7 parameters are already documented with defaults and semantics. The description only restates the pagination pair (offset/maxChars) and adds no new parameter meaning, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (returns), resource (page or one element), and output format (Markdown), plus enumerates what's included: headings, paragraphs, lists, links, tables, code. Sibling differentiation from page_snapshot/find is only implicit via the ref parameter's schema note, not stated in the description itself.

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 by 'readable content' — an agent can infer this is for extracting readable text rather than structure or raw HTML. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs page_snapshot, evaluate, or dom_inspect, and no guidance on when to prefer selector vs ref.

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