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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description usefully explains that related resources can be embedded via the include parameter. It says nothing about error behavior (unknown page_id) or the shape of the returned page, so it adds only modest context beyond 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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and immediately qualifies it with the optional embedding behavior. The trailing 'Sorry: GET /v1/pages/{page_id}?include=...' is a slight duplication of the schema but concisely conveys the underlying API mapping.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is fetched and how related resources can be embedded. Only minor gaps remain (return shape, error cases), which are low-risk for a simple GET.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the description merely restates the include options (notably omitting 'notices.components' from the enum). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get one status page') plus the optional include behavior, which distinguishes it from listing tools like sorryapp_list_pages. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, but the singular 'one status page' makes the scope clear.

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?

Usage is implied by 'one status page' and the 'include' hint, and the schema description for page_id points back to sorryapp_list_pages. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance (e.g. when to prefer list_pages or how to handle a missing page).

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