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 genuinely non-redundant context: the returned HTML is untrusted user content (a prompt-injection warning) and that the payload carries the concurrency value required for revision prep. It could say more about failure modes (missing/invalid page id).

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the returned data and the downstream purpose. Slightly redundant that 'Does not modify the page' restates readOnlyHint, but it is a cheap, useful reassurance placed last rather than cluttering the opener.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates the returned artifacts (original HTML, current revision, settings, edit permissions), covering the response an agent needs. Combined with the untrusted-content and no-mutation notes, it is close to complete for a single-param read tool, missing only id semantics and error behavior.

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?

There is one parameter, 'id', with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only implies scope via 'a page in the authenticated workspace' and offers no format, source, or lookup guidance for the identifier. Adequate but leaves the sole parameter under-specified.

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 names a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (a page's original HTML, current revision, settings, edit permissions) and scopes it to the authenticated workspace. It clearly distinguishes this single-page read from siblings like list_pages and get_revision, which cover listing and history respectively.

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?

It states the concrete downstream purpose: it 'Supplies the source and concurrency value needed to prepare a revision,' which tells an agent when to reach for it in the editing workflow. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer list_pages or get_revision), so it is context-rich but not fully routing.

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