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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the content is AHM not markdown, block ids and discussion anchors are part of the document, and the returned document_version is needed for subsequent edits. It doesn't describe pagination or error cases, but for a single-resource read with strong annotations, this is solid.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what the tool returns, what the content format implies, and how to use the result for editing. The most important information (AHM format, document_version) is front-loaded, and the workspace requirement is a useful final note.

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 single-parameter read tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns, the format caveat, the prerequisite spec, the edit workflow, and the workspace requirement. No output schema exists, but the description explains the key return values (AHM content, document_version) sufficiently.

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 100% and the single parameter 'id' is described as 'The unique identifier of the page path'. The description doesn't add much beyond that, but with only one parameter and full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does imply the id is a page path, which slightly reinforces the schema.

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 retrieves a wiki page as AgileHero Markup (AHM) with its document_version, and explicitly distinguishes AHM from markdown. It names the specific resource (wiki page) and the format (AHM), making it distinct from siblings like get_ahm_spec and update_wiki_page.

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 explicitly says to read get_ahm_spec before editing, and to edit via preview_wiki_page_update then update_wiki_page using the block ids and document_version returned here. It also states the Pro or trial workspace requirement, giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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