Get a page recipe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so admirably. It explicitly states 'Read-only: it returns the text and writes nothing to disk,' and discloses access-control behavior: free records are public, while Pro records return 403 with an upgrade path without leaking the payload.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence earns its place by adding either purpose, usage context, or critical behavioral/access details. There is no fluff.

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?

The tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description carries more weight. It explains the return type (full implementation export), format options, and access behavior. It could go further by describing the structure of the exported payload, but for a simple read-only tool the description is quite complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by associating markdown with 'reading' and JSON with 'programmatic use,' but this largely restates the format enum and does not meaningfully enhance understanding beyond the schema's already detailed slug and format descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve one page recipe's full implementation export.' It distinguishes itself by targeting a single page recipe (contrasting with list_page_recipes) and clarifies its relationship with a design kit, which supplies visual and interaction rules.

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 provides clear context: this tool is used to obtain the full implementation of a single page recipe, paired with a design kit. It implies when to use it (when you need the page's structure and argument) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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