Get Page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context of its own—nothing about permissions, the default markdown conversion, or the token cost of raw HTML (that warning lives only in the schema).

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?

A single fifteen-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is arguably undersized for a five-parameter tool with two lookup paths, but it contains no waste.

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 and the input schema is fully documented, including the token-usage caution, so the description needn't explain return values. What's left out—when to prefer title+space_key over page_id, and any auth/permission requirement—is minor given the schema's strength.

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 100% and the parameter docs are unusually rich (URL/tiny-link formats for page_id, precedence of page_id over title/space_key, the markdown-vs-HTML tradeoff). The description only restates the title+space_key alternative, adding no semantics beyond the schema—baseline 3.

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?

A specific verb ('Get content of') plus a specific resource ('a specific Confluence page') with both lookup modes named (ID, or title + space key). That scope implicitly separates it from confluence_search and confluence_get_page_children, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 two lookup modes imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit 'use this when / use confluence_search instead' guidance, and no prerequisites (auth, permissions) are stated. Usage is left to be inferred from the schema's parameter descriptions.

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