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

Annotations already declare readOnly/not destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds value by disclosing the return shape ('réponse courte, sans contenu'), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing exactly which version fields are returned or what happens for unpublished pages.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope limit is stated first. Minor cost: the description is in French while the tool name and siblings are English, and the expectedVersion warning sits apart from any usage sentence.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the gist (short response, no content) and a key workflow constraint. It leaves gaps on the sole parameter and on how the returned version relates to the revision/publication siblings, which an agent composing a write flow would need.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for pageId, so the description carries the burden of explaining it, yet it never mentions the parameter at all. It also references expectedVersion, which is not an input here, which could confuse an agent mapping parameters.

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 and resource: it reads only identity, current version and draft/publication state, and explicitly excludes content, which separates it from get_page and get_page_blocks. 'Identité' remains vague and the tool's relationship to get_page_revision or get_publication_status is not clarified.

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?

'Ne jamais deviner expectedVersion ni essayer plusieurs versions' implicitly tells the agent to call this before any versioned write and to trust a single call, which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not name the sibling it should be paired with (e.g. apply_page_changes) or state when another version tool is preferred.

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