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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new semantics: firstPublishedAt is null when the page was never public, page.slug is the live address, draftSlug is a pending address. Good added value without contradicting the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the remaining sentences are dense with field semantics rather than filler. It is somewhat information-packed, but each clause carries usable meaning, especially given the absence of an output schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must document return values itself, and it does so thoroughly (content vs metadata, draftSlug vs page.slug, firstPublishedAt, publishedRevisionId, latestRevision.version/id, headAnchor). An agent has everything needed to call it and use the result downstream.

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% for both required parameters (projectId, entryId), so the schema already carries the input semantics. The description's field discussion concerns return values, not input parameters, so no extra input meaning is added; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence states a specific verb+resource (get a collection entry's content and metadata), which clearly separates it from list_entries, get_page, and get_collection. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself against the nearest siblings such as get_page_content or list_entries within the collection domain.

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 routes the agent usefully: it identifies which returned fields feed save_entry_content (latestRevision.version) and publish_entry (latestRevision.id plus headAnchor), and explains that draftSlug is applied by the next publish_entry. It gives clear downstream context but no explicit when-not/alternative clause (e.g. versus list_entries or get_page).

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