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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the content is untrusted and must not be treated as instructions, and the response carries a concurrency value for the subsequent revision write. 'Does not modify the page' is redundant with readOnlyHint but harmless.

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?

Front-loaded with the retrieve action and payload, then the usage note, then the safety warning. Four sentences with no filler; the injection warning is long but earns its length for a tool returning raw HTML.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by listing HTML, revision, settings, permissions and the concurrency value. Annotations cover the safety profile. Only the id parameter's semantics remain undocumented.

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 0% for the single 'id' parameter and the description never explains its format or scope. It partially compensates by scoping retrieval to 'a page in the authenticated workspace', narrowing what the id can refer to, but adds no syntax or example.

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 ('Retrieve original HTML, current revision, settings and edit permissions for a page') and enumerates the return payload, which implicitly separates it from list_pages and get_revision. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from get_revision, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Supplies the source and concurrency value needed to prepare a revision' tells the agent this is a pre-edit read that feeds a later write step. Clear usage context, but no exclusions and no alternates named (list_pages, get_revision) for when this tool is not the right pick.

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