read_router_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still adds genuine value by disclosing that the payload is raw and redacted, warning the agent that secrets are masked. It does not say what the raw format is (HTML vs text), how large pages can get, or whether unsupported pages error out. With annotations in place, this is a moderate add rather than a rich one.

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 with the scoping constraint front-loaded and the discovery pointer tacked on at the end; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 shape need not be described, and there is only one parameter. Against that baseline the description covers purpose, the dedicated-tool alternative, the redaction caveat, and where to find valid page values, which is everything an agent needs before invoking it.

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 0%, so the bare 'page' string parameter receives no help from the schema. The description compensates partially by naming fios://pages as the source of valid values, but it never states the expected form (path, slug, numeric id) or whether it is case-sensitive, so an agent must still consult the resource to call correctly. Genuine help, but incomplete compensation for the coverage gap.

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 ('Raw (redacted) contents of one router page') and immediately scopes it ('for settings without a dedicated tool'), which separates it from the many dedicated getters/setters among its siblings. The word 'page' itself is undefined, but the pointer to fios://pages carries the reader to the enumeration.

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?

Gives an explicit selection rule: use this for settings that have no dedicated tool, implying the sibling get_* tools take precedence otherwise. Points to the fios://pages resource as the place to discover valid inputs, so the agent is not left guessing. No explicit rate limits or 'do not use for writes' statement, but readOnlyHint already covers the latter.

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