Прочитать несколько страниц / Read several pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description builds on this by disclosing partial success behavior (failed links do not fail the call, listed separately with error codes), duplicate/limit dropping with count, parallel fetching, and cost per link. No contradiction; this is rich behavioral context beyond the annotation hints.

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 detailed yet well-structured: what, when/when-not, returns, and cost. Every sentence adds value, and the bilingual format is purposeful. It avoids fluff while covering all necessary aspects in a compact, front-loaded layout.

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 output schema, the description sufficiently explains return values (text per page, 'not read' block with error codes) and handles edge cases (partial success, duplicates, over-limit). Combined with the annotations and thorough schema, the description makes the tool fully usable without additional inference.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with detailed explanations for all three parameters (urls, engine, maxChars), including defaults and constraints. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it mentions cost and general usage, which are not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states the tool reads a batch of pages (up to 5) in parallel and returns each page's text as clean markdown. It explicitly distinguishes from read_url by noting it's the same operation but in a single call, and differentiates from extract which returns specific fields. This satisfies the specific verb+resource criterion and sibling differentiation.

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 gives explicit when/when-not guidance: 'Use when: you have a list of links, e.g. the top web_search results.' It names alternatives: read_url for single pages, extract for specific fields, and notes extract also accepts a list. This is a clear, actionable usage policy.

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