site_read_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds useful context about the snapshot being 'immutable' and the action being reading 'the next page', disclosing the pagination-focused behavior. It does not, however, describe error conditions such as missing snapshot or end-of-data behavior, which would increase transparency further.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb, and every word contributes meaning. It is succinct and well-structured without 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?

The description is minimal and does not define what a 'site-specific document snapshot' is or how to acquire a snapshot_id, which is important since there are no parameter descriptions. The output schema covers return values, but the description lacks context on prerequisites and pagination mechanics. It is adequate for a simple read tool but has clear gaps.

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 description must compensate, but it only mentions 'next page', which loosely hints at offset semantics. It does not explain the meaning or role of snapshot_id, offset, or max_chars. The parameter names are self-explanatory to a limited degree, but the description adds no concrete detail about their usage.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'an existing immutable site-specific document snapshot'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like browser_read_page by emphasizing 'site-specific' and 'snapshot'. The phrase 'next page' clarifies its pagination role.

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 implicitly indicates the tool requires an existing snapshot and supports pagination ('next page'), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as browser_read_page or browser_snapshot. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage guidance only implied.

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