get_page_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns complete content in Markdown format, requires exact paths, and has a dependency on search_documentation. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured: purpose statement first, critical requirement second, dependency guidance third, and illustrative examples last. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy. The Spanish language doesn't affect conciseness scoring.

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 read-only tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and provides examples. The main gap is lack of output format details beyond 'Markdown' (structure, size limits, error responses).

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reinforces that 'path' must be exact and obtained from search_documentation, and provides concrete examples showing how tech and path parameters combine. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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 specific action ('obtiene el contenido completo'), target resource ('una página de documentación'), and output format ('formato Markdown'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like search_documentation (which finds paths) and get_multiple_pages (which handles multiple pages).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Necesitas el path exacto') and when to use an alternative ('Usa search_documentation para encontrarlo'). It provides clear prerequisites and distinguishes this from search tools in the sibling list.

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