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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the specific fields returned (name, status, edit URL, live URL), which is useful context beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't disclose behavior like what happens if the page is not found (error handling) or whether the edit URL is only present for certain statuses. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the return fields. Every word earns its place, and there is no wasted text or repetition of the title.

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 simple read tool with one parameter, an output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is nearly complete. It states what the tool does, what it returns, and how to get the parameter. The only minor gap is error behavior (e.g., what happens with an invalid UUID), but that's not critical for an agent to invoke the tool 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%, so the schema already documents the pageId parameter. The description adds the context that pageId is 'the page UUID' and references list_pages / list_sites as the source, which is slightly redundant with the schema's description ('The page UUID (id from list_pages / list_sites)'). Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 function: 'Get details for a single landing page or site page by its id (the page UUID).' It specifies the resource (landing page or site page), the identifier (page UUID), and the exact fields returned (name, status, edit URL, live URL). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_pages (which lists pages) and get_page_analytics (which gets analytics).

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 a single page by its UUID. It references list_pages / list_sites as the source for the pageId, which provides context on how to obtain the required parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like get_page_analytics, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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