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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (base64-encoded bytes), the overhead of traveling as text (roughly a third more), and the resulting size ceiling, plus the permission requirement. This goes well beyond the schema and gives the agent operational awareness. A 5 would require even more detail, such as exact error behaviors, but the current disclosure is strong.

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 sentences, each dense with information: purpose+identification, use case+counterpart, and size/alternative+permission. The primary action is front-loaded. It could be trimmed slightly, but no sentence is wasted and the structure flows logically from what→how→when.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what the tool returns (base64-encoded bytes). It covers the identification methods, the primary use case, the size limitation and alternative, and the permission requirement. For a read-only retrieval tool with four parameters, this is complete — nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds the important rule that the page can be identified by either pageId or by spaceKey+title (implying mutual exclusivity), which the schema does not state. It also clarifies that filename follows the listing from get_wiki_page. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't delve into formats or defaults further, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 (Read), a precise resource (one file attached to a wiki page), and even enumerates the identification methods (pageId or spaceKey+title, filename). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling get_wiki_page (which lists files) and add_wiki_attachment (which writes), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly describes a concrete use case (copying a file between pages) and names the exact counterpart tool (add_wiki_attachment) for the write half. It also gives an exclusion condition (anything larger, or for disk) and points to the pm-files MCP server as the alternative, plus notes the only prerequisite (permission to see the page). No guidance is left to inference.

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