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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the output format (Markdown) and that the revision number is included, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether the page must exist, what happens for missing pages, or whether the revision number is the latest revision.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and output format, then adds the revision number detail. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and output format. However, it lacks details about error behavior, slug format, and how the revision number is presented, which an agent might need for robust invocation.

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 for the undocumented 'slug' parameter. The description implies the slug identifies the wiki page, but it does not explain the expected format (e.g., URL-encoded, human-readable, path segments). This is a minimal but acceptable level of compensation for a single obvious parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('one wiki page'), and the output format ('as Markdown'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_topic and get_page_history. It also adds the current revision number detail, which is not obvious from the name alone.

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 implies usage for reading a single page's Markdown content, which is clear enough for an agent to select it over list_pages or get_topic. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer get_page_history or get_topic, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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