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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds non-obvious behavior by explaining the return structure and that entries marked "edited" show current, already-changed wording. This is genuinely useful context an agent could not infer from annotations or schema, though nothing is said about ordering, size, or route failures.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the highest-value instruction (call before editing) is placed after the output description but before the edge-case note. Nothing is repeated from the name or annotations.

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 takes on describing the return payload (tag/text/class) and does so adequately, plus notes the "edited" marker. Minor gaps remain around pagination or whether all page text is returned at once, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is only 50%: route is documented in the schema but siteId is undocumented in both schema and description, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. With half the parameters carrying no semantics anywhere, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource (page text) and specifies the return shape (list of elements with tag, text, optional class), which is concrete and actionable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling readers like get_page_outline or get_page_context, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"call it before editing so your oldText matches exactly" gives a clear trigger condition tied to the edit workflow (edit_text/batch_edit_design), which is strong usage guidance. It stops short of 5 because it names no alternative tool or when-not-to-use condition.

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