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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: default Markdown output with the body under the `markdown` field, tiptap for raw ProseMirror JSON, webUrl requiring normal workspace access, and the required API-key scope. It omits error behavior for a missing slug/space, which keeps it from a 5.

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, purpose front-loaded and no filler; each sentence carries operational detail. The API-key scope line is somewhat boilerplate but still actionable for auth setup.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly steps in to describe the return shape (markdown field, webUrl) and the format switch, and account/workspace selection is already handled in the schema. What's missing is disambiguation from wiki_search/wiki_retrieve and any not-found behavior for a five-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns a bump by explaining what `format="tiptap"` actually yields (raw ProseMirror JSON) and that the markdown body lands in a named field. It also implies the spaceKey scoping for the slug lookup, which the schema leaves undescribed.

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 plus its addressing scheme: get a wiki page by slug within a space. The body format behavior and the returned fields are named immediately, so an agent knows exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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 a positive use case ("Use it for citations") and an explicit exclusion ("it does not make the page public"), which usefully separates it from the share/public sibling tools. It does not, however, name alternatives such as wiki_search or wiki_retrieve for cases where the caller lacks a slug or wants full-text lookup.

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