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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real value on top: it discloses that the response carries version history with per-plan retention limits (Free 10 / Pro 50 / MAX 200) and the live URL. It does not cover auth requirements or failure behavior for an unknown siteId, so it falls short of 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, then flow; every part is actionable. Minor redundancy between 'saved versions, published URL' in sentence one and 'version history ... and the live URL' in sentence three, but it is not costly.

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 responsibly summarizes return contents and retention limits, and the workflow line gives enough context to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the unresolved site/page ID ambiguity, which an agent may stumble on when choosing an ID.

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?

Single parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema carries the definition and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the siteId, and notably does not resolve the site-vs-page terminology mismatch (tool name get_site, title 'Get page details', param siteId described as 'the ID of the page'), which is the one place description help would matter.

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?

Names a specific verb (get) and resource (Convika page) and enumerates the payload: saved versions, published URL, current status. Clearly distinguishable from list_sites/list_pages and from mutators like save_page_content or publish_site.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it ('before editing or publishing to understand the page's current state') and then spells out the full workflow list_sites → get_site → save_page_content → create_preview → approval → publish_site, naming the alternatives and their order.

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