mbs_get_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the output includes readable text and PDF attachment links, which is useful. However, it does not mention error handling, prerequisites, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic fetch operation.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and output, with no redundant words. Every clause adds relevant information, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: input format and output content. It does not explain edge cases or metadata beyond the text and PDF links, but for the tool's simplicity this is largely sufficient, though not exhaustive.

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 tool description simply restates the parameter name and format ('slug or full URL') without adding new meaning. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and no extra semantic detail is provided.

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 action (fetch), the resource (one page), and the output (readable text plus PDF attachment links). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'one page by slug or full URL', which is a distinct use case compared to listing or searching tools.

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 implies usage when you have a specific slug or URL, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like mbs_search or mbs_list_pages. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are provided, so guidelines are only implied.

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