mrx_read_page

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by revealing internal checks (sitemap, hash, indexability) and the precise rejection criteria, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not detail response shape, but that is not essential given the annotations.

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 compact with no redundant phrasing. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence states restrictions precisely and efficiently.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, valid inputs, and invalid inputs. It does not mention the return payload, but with no output schema and a simple read operation, that omission is minor and does not impede correct usage.

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 provides only a bare 'url' string with zero description coverage. The description fully compensates by specifying the exact allowed origin, the requirement that URLs come from search results, and the list of rejected URL components, making the parameter semantics clear and actionable.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('canonical public MRX page'), and adds the distinct context of sitemap, hash, and indexability checks. This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling tools like mrx_search_guides or mrx_status.

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 tells the agent when the tool is valid: only https://mineralrightsxchange.com/ URLs returned by search, and explicitly rejects private routes, off-site URLs, queries, fragments, and redirects. However, it does not explicitly name the search sibling as the alternative for finding such URLs, so the routing is implied rather than fully explicit.

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