page_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('get') but doesn't describe what 'get' entails—e.g., whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, as it leaves the agent guessing about behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise ('get page id from url')—just four words—with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, with no annotations and many sibling tools, it lacks completeness in usage guidelines and behavioral context. For a tool that likely involves network calls or data retrieval, more detail on behavior would be helpful, making it incomplete in a broader context.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The description implies the input ('from url') but doesn't add semantics beyond the schema, which is fine here. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 'get page id from url' clearly states the verb ('get') and resource ('page id'), with the input ('from url') implied. It distinguishes from siblings like 'page_details' or 'profile_id' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_group_id' or 'profile_id', which serve similar purposes for other resources, so it's not a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'page_details', 'profile_id'), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate. The implied usage is minimal, lacking explicit alternatives or constraints.

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