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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the returned field set, but since an output schema exists that information is largely duplicated rather than adding new behavioral context such as not-found handling or pagination/rate considerations.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core action and lookup key front-loaded and the return payload summarized after. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 single-record read with a fully documented one-parameter schema, readOnlyHint, and an output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly. Minor gap: no note on behavior when the UUID is unknown or belongs to a different workspace.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already describing pageId as 'the page UUID (id from list_pages / list_sites)'. The description's mention of 'page UUID' reinforces but does not extend the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 — 'Get details for a single landing page or site page by its id' — and names what comes back (name, status, edit URL, live URL). It implicitly contrasts with list_pages by emphasizing 'single ... by its id', but never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch one record when you already hold a UUID. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_pages, get_page_analytics, or edit_page, and no prerequisites or failure conditions are mentioned.

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