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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it returns exactly one file, explains the parent/anchorPath relationship for reveal nodes, and describes the shape of each file variant. It stops short of stating error behavior when a file is missing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action first, then qualifies the three return variants. It is dense with parenthetical detail, but every clause carries information; slightly heavy for one sentence.

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 an output schema present the description need not explain return values, yet it usefully characterizes the JSON shapes. Combined with six well-documented parameters it is nearly complete for an agent to call correctly; only explicit sibling routing guidance 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 description coverage is 100% and the schemas already tell the agent that page/view/version/product are keys from list_pages, list_versions, etc. The description reinforces the file-type taxonomy (reveal/frame/viewport) but adds little syntax or format meaning the schema does not already carry, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (return one evidence JSON file for a page view) and enumerates the three distinct file categories it can return (reveal-*, frame-*, viewport-*). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_page_evidence_image and get_capture_asset, which are image-oriented.

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?

Usage is implied by the file-name references (the file must come from get_page_summary.evidence or element fields), but the description never states when to choose this tool over get_page_evidence_image or the other evidence/asset siblings. An agent must infer the routing from parameter semantics rather than being told.

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