read_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns the full page (all entries), which is behavioral context beyond the name. However, it omits details about return format, error cases, or pagination, but for a read operation this is a moderate disclosure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without redundancy. Every word adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description is complete: it names the target, explains what is returned (all entries), and the accepted identifier format. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough about the return (all entries) to set expectations.

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 schema only provides a string property 'page' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds crucial semantic meaning by specifying that 'page' can be a page name or id, fully compensating for the schema 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read'), identifies the resource ('full page'), and clarifies scope ('all entries') and accepted identifiers ('page name or id'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_pages or search_entries.

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 phrase 'full page (all entries)' implies the appropriate use case: when you need all entries of a page. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer an alternative (e.g., search_entries) or provide exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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