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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the description can focus elsewhere — and it does, disclosing the exact return fields, the scope restriction to the connected maker's space, and the page_not_found error. It stops short of describing response size or latency behavior for large html payloads beyond a general 'can be large' warning.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then usage routing, then error behavior. Every clause carries actionable information — return fields, the html flag effect, sibling routing, failure mode.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the metadata fields and the conditional html field. Combined with sibling routing and the documented error case, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by tying include_html to an observable output difference ('metadata always... plus the stored HTML when include_html is true'), which the schema documents only as a field-level note. It does not add id syntax details beyond what the schema already gives.

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 ('Fetch one page by id') and enumerates exactly what is returned (metadata fields plus optional html), so the agent knows the payload shape before calling. It also names siblings ('update_page', 'list_pages') to separate reading a single page from editing or browsing.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: read a page before editing it with update_page, and use list_pages to find ids or browse. It also names the failure case (page_not_found) and its conditions (not in this space, or deleted).

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