get_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It discloses the return contents (full content, metadata, source thought IDs) which is useful, but it does not explicitly state side effects, authentication requirements, or error behavior. 'Get' strongly implies read-only, but the description could be more explicit about non-destructiveness and edge cases.

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 is effectively front-loaded with the verb and object, followed by concise detail about the output. There is no fluff or redundancy, and every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter get-by-ID tool, the description is reasonably complete: it names the parameter (implicitly, via 'ID'), states what is returned, and the schema clarifies the parameter type. However, with no output schema or explicit error-handling info, an agent might want more detail about the return structure or failure cases, but the description is sufficient for straightforward use.

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 covers the only parameter page_id with a description ('The page ID to retrieve'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description simply repeats the notion of 'by ID' without adding format constraints, examples, or additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('a single page'), and the specific scoping ('by ID'), while also enumerating what is returned ('full content, metadata, and source thought IDs'). This distinguishes it from sibling get tools like get_post or get_stream by explicitly naming 'page' and its unique payload.

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 (use when you need a single page by ID) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as search_pages or list_pages. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or named siblings, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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