Get a Ghost page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful payload context ('HTML, Lexical content, and complete SEO and social metadata'), but it does not disclose error behavior, not-found handling, or permission requirements beyond what annotations and the output schema provide.

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 that front-loads the verb, resource, identifier constraint, and payload contents. Every clause adds value with no redundancy or throat-clearing.

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 the description need not document return fields in detail. With annotations covering the safety profile and the schema covering the parameter structure, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly, missing only failure/not-found context that an agent might need in edge cases.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does so by explaining that 'id_or_slug' accepts either an exact Ghost ID or slug, adding semantic value beyond the bare string type. It stops short of specifying slug format or case-sensitivity rules, but it compensates meaningfully for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one page'), scopes it to a single item, and names the accepted identifier forms ('exact Ghost ID or slug'). It also lists the returned content types, which distinguishes it from list_pages and from get_post for posts.

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 phrase 'by exact Ghost ID or slug' implies the tool is for direct retrieval when an exact identifier is known, not for discovery or search. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_pages or get_post, nor does it state when not to use it, so guidance remains 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.