Get one page

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 does not need to repeat those. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the response includes slideProperties.notesPage, pageElement size, transform in EMU units with conversion, and complete text. This helps the agent anticipate the return shape even without an output schema.

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 with no filler: the first states the core action and scope, the second gives the most important return-shape details, and the third routes the agent to the right alternative. Key information is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the purpose, valid inputs, alternative tools, and the essential response contents. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit description of notesPage, pageElements, size, transform, and text.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context by clarifying which object ids are valid (slide/layout/master/notes-page id from list_slides or get_presentation) and by explaining the EMU transform unit. These details reinforce the schema without contradicting it.

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 and resource ('Returns one page in full by its object id') and explicitly enumerates supported page types: slides, layouts, masters, and notes pages. It also differentiates itself from siblings by naming list_slides and get_presentation as alternatives, so an agent can disambiguate 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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance: use it when a single page needs full detail and list_slides' summary is insufficient, but get_presentation would return too much. It also establishes which page object ids are valid, effectively excluding irrelevant inputs.

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