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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses the default expansion behavior (dereferencing shortcodes and inlining <expansion> blocks) and the preservation of the original literal. It also clarifies the effect of raw:true, providing substantial behavioral detail that the annotations do not cover.

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 dense but each sentence serves a purpose: it starts with the core operation, then explains the default expansion, the raw override, cross-reference resolution, and how to locate the id. It is longer than strictly necessary but well-structured and front-loaded with the main function.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description appropriately omits return format details, but it adds valuable cross-reference resolution hints (parent and vaultCharacterId) and workflow guidance on locating the id. The tool is fully contextualized for an agent to call it 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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description re-explains the raw parameter's behavior and adds a round-tripping use case, but this adds only marginal value beyond the schema, not enough to raise the score.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one world page by id') and enumerates the returned content (full markdown body, tags, parent reference). It differentiates itself from siblings by pairing with list/search tools to locate the id, implying this tool is for retrieval of a single known page.

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?

It explicitly advises pairing with imagine_list_world_pages or imagine_search_world_pages to locate the id, and explains the raw:true option for round-tripping bodies back to imagine_update_world_page. This gives clear workflow context, though it does not describe when not to use the tool relative to other getters.

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