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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral disclosure: 'Never returns the page body or the password.' This is an explicit constraint on the response beyond the annotation, which helps the agent set expectations. No contradictions with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence. It states the action, resource, identifier, returned fields, and a critical negative guarantee ('Never returns the page body or the password') without any redundant wording. Every clause 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?

The tool is simple: one parameter, output schema exists, and annotations cover safety. The description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what data is returned and what is excluded. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to list return types. No significant gaps remain.

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. It does by explicitly stating the tool fetches pages 'by slug', clarifying the purpose of the single parameter. The schema provides type and length constraints. The description adds the semantic role of the slug, which is sufficient for this simple one-parameter tool, though it doesn't elaborate on slug format or sourcing.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('your pages by slug'), enumerates the returned fields (title, format, status, counts, expiry, password-protection), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_my_pages (listing) and delete_page/update_page (mutations). It also explicitly states what it does NOT return, which sharpens purpose.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need metadata for a single page identified by slug. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use list_my_pages to list all pages'), but the context from sibling tool names and the 'by slug' qualifier provides clear usage context. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so not a 5.

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