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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: this is a deprecated/legacy alias and its response format differs from fetch. It stops short of saying anything about rate limits, caching, or what the differing shape actually looks like.

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 and the routing advice, with essentially no filler. The only mild redundancy is restating the 'different shape than fetch' idea, but the structure is efficient.

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, and the description notes the return format differs from fetch without describing it, which is a small gap for a tool the agent might still call. For a deprecated alias whose guidance is 'use fetch instead', the coverage of purpose, status and route-away is otherwise sufficient.

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 100% and the single parameter (url) is documented in the schema, including that Japanese-language URLs/paths are acceptable. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 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 that get_page returns a page's body like fetch but in a different format, and identifies itself as a retained legacy name ('以前の名前') for esprit-delasse.com. That is a concrete verb+resource plus a clear distinction from the sibling fetch. It is slightly less specific than ideal because the actual output shape is never characterized.

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 explicitly says to use fetch for new work ('新しく使うときは fetch を使ってください') and explains that get_page is kept only for clients already connected to it. Both the when and the when-not are stated, with the alternate tool named.

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