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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the annotation title previews the viewer/editor split. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: never-published pages are not found for viewers, and editors receive the working draft plus the updateRevision needed for update_page. It is valuable but partly overlaps with the annotation title and does not cover error behavior beyond the viewer not-found case.

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 two tightly written sentences. It front-loads the core action and then layers role-specific behavior without wasted wording.

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 and a single required parameter, the description supplies the key return-value context an agent needs: viewers get only published content, while editors get the working draft, updateRevision, and version history summary. The never-published-page edge case further rounds out the behavioral picture.

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 only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining that pageId comes from list_pages. The description does not add any new syntax or format constraints for pageId, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Get one web part page by id.' It clearly distinguishes the operation from list_pages by focusing on a single page, and it names update_page as the consumer of updateRevision, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 establishes clear context: use this when you have a pageId from list_pages and need one page. It also explains that updateRevision should be passed to update_page, linking the read to the subsequent update. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with neighboring page tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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