Read a course page

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false, so the description adds value by specifying the output format ('full content as text'). It does not repeat annotation info and adds unique context. There is no contradiction with 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 extremely concise: two sentences with no excess words. Every sentence adds value—the first explains the core action and output, the second clarifies the parameter source. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool has a simple read operation, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what it does, what the output is, and where to get the parameter. No additional context is needed for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it clarifies that page_url is a 'slug' from other tools, which is useful context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal but helpful detail.

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 clearly states the tool reads a course page's full content as text, using a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('course page'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like canvas_list_pages (which likely lists pages without content) and canvas_list_modules (which lists modules). However, it could be more explicit about the distinction from sibling tools.

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 tells users to use the 'url' slug from canvas_list_pages or canvas_list_modules as the page_url, providing clear context on how to obtain the parameter value. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the sibling list and the instruction to read rather than list implicitly guide usage.

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