qrtap_get_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that this is a read that returns current content, plus the critical hazard that qrtap_update_page overwrites content wholesale. It does not cover error behavior (e.g., unknown slug) or any permission/visibility constraints on "public" pages, so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the workflow, then the sibling exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct routing or behavioral information with no repetition.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential return hint (`content` object) and the reason to call it. It leaves the rest of the page object's shape unstated, which is acceptable given no output schema but is a small remaining gap.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents `slug` with an example. The description adds only the implicit notion of scope ("public page") and does not clarify slug format, uniqueness, or resolution rules beyond the schema example — 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?

Specific verb+resource ("Read ONE public page in full") with the returned payload named (`content` object). It explicitly separates itself from both siblings that could be confused with it: qrtap_list_pages (omits content) and qrtap_update_page (the write counterpart).

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?

States the exact workflow it belongs to — "read-before-write step for qrtap_update_page" — and gives the procedure (fetch, change one field, send merged object). It also rules out the tempting alternative by explaining why qrtap_list_pages cannot serve this purpose.

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