infosys_get_page

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, non-destructive profile, so the burden is lower. The description adds real behavior: fetched live, cached, refresh=true bypasses the cache, and coverage extends beyond the index. It stops short of noting truncation behavior.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: output format first, then accepted ref forms, then caching/refresh. Every sentence carries information, though the packed parenthetical and inline ref examples make it slightly dense.

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 return values need no explanation. The description covers the input formats, cache behavior, and coverage scope adequately for a fetch tool; the only gap is the undocumented max_chars truncation control.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameters. It thoroughly documents the many accepted forms of 'ref' (URL, book/pageid, bare id, symbol name) and explains refresh=true. However max_chars is never addressed, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Clear verb+resource: returns a documentation page as Markdown, with a note that it works for any page 'indexed or not'. This implicitly distinguishes it from the infosys_search/index siblings, but it never names them, so differentiation requires inference.

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?

Usage is implied (fetch a specific doc page) and the 'works for any page... indexed or not' clause hints you can go direct rather than search. However there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no sibling is named as the alternative.

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