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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds real value beyond them: the body is a Y.js collab doc exposed only as a read-only plaintext rendering, editability is restricted to the live editor, and a PRO+ plan gate applies. It does not cover failure modes (e.g. page not found or plan-gate error behavior), so it falls short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and a tight read/write disambiguation; the plan gate is tacked on the end but is short. No filler, though the parenthetical field list is slightly dense.

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 burden of describing returns and does so adequately (metadata fields + plaintext rendering), plus it discloses the plan gate and the yDocState limitation. What is missing is guidance on the pageId source and error/permission 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?

Only one parameter (pageId) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description gives no hint about its format or where to obtain it (e.g. list_wiki_pages). With a single obvious identifier parameter the gap is minor, so 3 rather than lower.

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+resource ('get a single wiki page') and enumerates exactly what is returned: metadata fields (title, icon, parent, order) plus a plaintext body rendering. This clearly distinguishes it from list_wiki_pages and update_wiki_page without opening either schema.

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?

Explains the read use case and pre-empts a common mistake by stating the body can only be EDITED in the live editor, since update_wiki_page changes metadata only. It does not name list_wiki_pages as the way to resolve pageId, so the routing back to retrieval of the identifier is left implicit.

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