get_doc_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: it returns published reStructuredText source (so code blocks/directives survive), and it discloses that long pages are windowed with the footer indicating the next offset. It does not mention auth/permissions or rate limits, but pagination and return-format behavior are covered.

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 behavioral facts and input contract are front-loaded, and the Args block earns its place because schema coverage is zero. The block slightly duplicates the schema structure, but there is no filler text.

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, yet the description usefully explains the return shape and pagination anyway, and it covers both library scoping and versioning. Combined with the schema, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only auth/version-format details are absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all five parameters inline (page as name or URL, library options merlin/perceval, version override, offset, limit). The version entry ('docs version override') is somewhat thin and no value ranges/defaults are given, but every parameter is at least semantically grounded.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Read one documentation page in full') and scopes it against the sibling workflow by stating it accepts a page name produced by search_docs. An agent can distinguish this from search_docs and, by resource wording, from the API-doc and source tools without opening the schema.

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?

It clearly tells the agent the two valid inputs (a search_docs page name like 'user_guide/layer' or a documentation URL), which implies the intended workflow after searching. It stops short of explicit exclusions ('use get_api_doc instead for API reference'), so it is clear context without routing rules.

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