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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by naming the returned field and giving an example value (`english`) in the absence of an output schema. However, it is silent on behavior when neither optional id is supplied (required parameters = 0), which is a real behavioral gap.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the invocation hint. No filler, and the return-value hint earns its place.

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 trivial two-parameter lookup this is close to sufficient, and the inline return example compensates for the missing output schema. The remaining gap is that an agent cannot tell whether one identifier is required or what happens if both are omitted.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: the 'or' indicates the two identifiers are alternatives rather than both mandatory, which the schema (both nullable, zero required) does not convey. It does not explain what each identifier is or whether both may be passed simultaneously.

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 read operation on a specific resource (content language of a `seliee_page`) and names the underlying field `seliee_page_language`, which cleanly separates it from the many `get_page*` siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with `get_page` or `get_website_language`, but the resource is 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 only guidance is 'Pass `page_id` or `page_uuid`', which is invocation mechanics rather than when-to-use. Usage is implied by the name and description, but no alternatives (e.g. use `get_page` for full page data) or preconditions are given.

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