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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output is base64-encoded bytes, warns about size/cost overhead ('cost roughly a third more than the file itself'), mentions a size ceiling, and offers a fallback. It also clarifies the two identification modes. This is far beyond a bare read description and leaves nothing hidden about side effects or prerequisites.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives the copy workflow, then the size/alternative note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler. The structure moves from 'what' to 'when' to 'caveats' efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (two identification schemes, output format, size limits, alternative server), the description covers everything an agent needs: how to identify the page and file, what the response contains, why it might not be suitable, and what to do instead. No output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains the base64 return. The only omission is error behavior for missing files, which is minor for a read operation.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining the relationship between pageId and spaceKey+title (two alternative identification methods) and clarifying that filename should match what get_wiki_page lists. It also ties pageId to search_wiki via the schema, and the description's context about copying gives the parameters purpose. This exceeds the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read one file attached to a wiki page'), states the output format (base64-encoded bytes), and identifies the page by two explicit methods (pageId or spaceKey+title) and the file by filename as listed by get_wiki_page. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like add_wiki_attachment and delete_wiki_attachment by framing the read as the copy source.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'This is how a file is copied from one page to another: read it here, write it with add_wiki_attachment.' It also provides an explicit alternative for larger files or disk storage, pointing to the pm-files MCP server and local_files_setup, and states the permission requirement ('Reading needs only permission to see the page'). No inference is left to the agent.

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