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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond them: it warns that page content is untrusted shared data rather than instructions and that links never grant access, establishing a security boundary the annotations do not convey. It also clarifies that different query modes return different content types (current, snapshot, conflict proposal).

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoping, then variant semantics, then a security caveat. No filler; each sentence earns its place.

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?

Without an output schema the description still describes the return (HTML plus metadata, or snapshot/proposal variants), and the connection credential requirement is documented in the schema. For a read-only tool this covers everything an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 75%, and the description compensates for the undocumented revision parameter by explaining it 'reads an accepted snapshot,' while reinforcing change_id's role. This adds semantic meaning (what each read mode returns) beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a page's current HTML and metadata') plus the keying mechanism ('by stable page_id'), which cleanly distinguishes it from pages_list and page_history siblings. An agent can immediately tell what this returns.

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?

Explains the variant-selection rules clearly: revision reads an accepted snapshot while change_id retrieves a retained conflict proposal from page_history, implying these are the two distinct read modes. It stops short of explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance against page_history/pages_list as whole tools.

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