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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description additionally states that it returns specific fields (name, status, edit URL, live URL), which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether it might return other fields or any potential errors (e.g., if the page is not found). Since annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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, conveying the key information efficiently without waste. It is front-loaded with the verb and object. The only minor redundancy is 'by its id' and 'the page UUID' appearing in quick succession, but it remains concise.

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 tool is simple (one parameter), has an output schema, and has appropriate annotations. The description covers the purpose, parameter semantics (though schema does), and key return fields. There is no need to explain the output schema since it exists. The description is sufficient for a straightforward read-only retrieval tool, though it could be argued that it doesn't mention potential error cases, but that is not critical for completeness given the simplicity.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the parameter 'pageId' with a description: 'The page UUID (id from list_pages / list_sites).' The tool description also mentions 'by its id (the page UUID).' This overlaps with the schema, adding no additional meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully describes the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get details for a single landing page or site page by its id (the page UUID).' It specifies the resource (page) and the action (get details). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the phrase 'single... by its id' distinguishes it from listing tools, and the list of returned fields (name, status, edit URL, live URL) adds specificity.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need details for one page, as opposed to listing all pages (list_pages) or getting analytics (get_page_analytics). It provides clear context ('by its id') and indicates the prerequisite of having the page UUID. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives by name.

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