Get WordPress Page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, reducing the burden. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it discloses that the content is 'rendered to plain text — HTML stripped' and that the return expands content_preview, which gives the agent additional expectations about the operation's side effects and output format.

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 well-structured with clear sections ('Args' and 'Returns') and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. While it repeats some schema parameter details, it avoids fluff and each section earns its place, keeping the overall size reasonable for the tool's complexity.

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 single-page fetch tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return type (WPContentItem) and the expansion of content_preview, and covers the response_format options. It lacks information about error cases or prerequisites, but the combination of annotations, full schema coverage, and description is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description enhances semantics by explicitly stating that 'id' and 'slug' are mutually exclusive and that at least one must be provided, which clarifies the relationship beyond the schema's 'Either id OR slug is required'.

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 'Fetch a single page by ID or slug', using a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like wp_get_post (which targets posts) and wp_list_pages (which lists multiple pages) by emphasizing 'single page' and 'by ID or slug'.

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 some context by stating 'Fetch a single page by ID or slug' and requiring at least one of id or slug, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, such as when to use wp_get_post or wp_list_pages instead, leaving the guidance implied rather than explicit.

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