read_page

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description reveals important behavior: no network access, content_selector already applied, truncation at max_bytes, and a next_offset mechanism for reading the rest. These are not derivable from the annotations or schema alone.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: core function, sibling distinction, discovery workflow, and pagination behavior. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers return format, truncation, and continuation via next_offset. It also provides the surrounding workflow with list_pages and clarifies the live-crawl tradeoff, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, and the schema already explains each parameter's meaning. The description's mention of max_bytes truncation and next_offset adds behavioral context, but it does not add new semantic detail about the parameters themselves.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return a page's markdown from the stored crawl output, without any network access.' It explicitly contrasts itself with get_page, making the tool's role unambiguous and differentiating it from the most similar sibling.

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 gives clear workflow guidance: 'Use list_pages to discover URLs, then read_page to read them.' It also explains the exact tradeoff versus get_page (crawled copy vs live re-fetch), so an agent knows when to select this tool over the alternative.

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