Read a course page

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by specifying that the output is 'HTML stripped to text', which informs the agent about the response format. This goes beyond the annotations and aids in setting expectations for the returned data.

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 a single sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and resource, then appends a crucial qualifier about HTML stripping. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 read operation with only two required parameters, both well-documented in the schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient. It explains the output format (stripped text) and the tool's purpose. No additional information is necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly; an output schema is not present, but the return content is described sufficiently.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters: 'Canvas course id' and 'Page url slug or id'. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 for high 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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'one wiki page', and adds the specific detail 'content (HTML stripped to text)'. This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like canvas_list_course_pages, which lists pages, and other getters. The purpose is unambiguous and directly maps to the tool's function.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single page's content, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like canvas_list_course_pages or when not to use it. There is no exclusionary guidance or mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling tool names. Clear context exists but no explicit routing.

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