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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: this is a deprecated alias being kept alive for existing integrations and returns a different shape than fetch.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the legacy status so an agent knows immediately to prefer fetch. No filler, though the second sentence about return shape could have been made concrete rather than merely asserting a difference.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, yet it only says the shape 'differs' without describing it. For a deprecated alias that is tolerable, but it is a real gap for an agent that must parse the response.

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?

With a single required url parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the parameter, including that Japanese text is acceptable. The description adds nothing about the url, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (returns the page body) and frames the tool against its sibling fetch by noting the return shape differs. It is clear that this is a legacy alias, though it never says how the shape differs, which is the one thing that would fully disambiguate it from fetch.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: use fetch for new usage, and this exists only for users already connected under the old name. That covers the 'when not to use' case clearly, but leaves the specific condition under which an agent should still pick get_page unspecified beyond backward compatibility.

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