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

The description indicates a read-only preview ('preview before restoring'), which is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds context about the intended use without contradicting the annotation.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then provide supporting context. No unnecessary words or details.

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?

For a simple read-only retrieval tool with no output schema or nested objects, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns, how to obtain the required revisionId, and the prerequisite of project context. Nothing essential 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?

The parameter schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The tool description does not add extra semantic details beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: to get one revision's full title and content as a preview. It distinguishes itself from related tools like list_doc_page_revisions (which provides revisionId) and manage_doc_page (which performs the restore).

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 gives a practical workflow: obtain revisionId from list_doc_page_revisions and use this tool before restoring with manage_doc_page. It also notes that project context is required. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get_* tools, the usage is clear enough.

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