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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: the returned version token is state that put_page depends on (an optimistic-concurrency contract), and that `url` changes meaning once an owner domain is connected. It stops short of auth/rate-limit details, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loads the resource and scope, then the workflow dependency, then field semantics — a sensible ordering with no filler. It is somewhat run-on in the back half, and the `url`/`pages` explanation partly duplicates what the output schema already provides.

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 read-only single-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the one thing structured data cannot: the put_page version handshake. Return-field semantics are explained even though the output schema exists, which is mildly redundant but not harmful.

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?

There is one parameter and schema_description_coverage is 100% — the handle format and example ('janedoe', keepp.link/<handle>) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the `business` parameter itself, 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?

Opens with a precise scope statement — 'The whole page document: every block in order, and the theme' — naming both the resource and its contents, and contrasts the operation with its write counterpart put_page. An agent can distinguish it from get_product/get_booking_unit/put_page without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Read this before writing') and an explicit workflow dependency ('keep the `version` it returns — put_page needs it'), which tells the agent both when to call it and what to do with the result. This is the same class of routing guidance as naming an alternative sibling.

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