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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does: authorization is required, draft access is scoped to a temporary capability, and the caller is told to use zero-based indexes in page.items for linkUpdates. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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 with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The trailing sentence about zero-based indexes is output-related guidance that sits slightly awkwardly in a read tool's description but is not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But the critical selection logic — slug for a published page versus draftId plus draftCapability for a draft, and what happens if none are supplied — is left for the agent to infer from bare patterns, which leaves the definition incomplete for a three-parameter tool.

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 0% and all three parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description carries the full burden. It only partially compensates: 'draftCapability' is loosely tied to 'temporary draft capability grants draft access only', but 'slug' and 'draftId' are never explained, nor is the fact that zero parameters are required or how the three interact.

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+resource ('Read an authorized published page or a private draft') and scopes the resource into two access modes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_page_preview or list_pages, so it falls short of a 5.

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 states that the page must be authorized and that a 'temporary draft capability grants draft access only', which implies the draft path's precondition. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_page_preview or list_pages, and no statement about which parameters select the published vs. draft path.

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