Get a content summary

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already cover safety; the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns a minimal summary without the body, and its purpose suggests it is lightweight and suitable for repeated use. This goes beyond the structured annotations and clarifies expected performance.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return type, then the purpose, then input options. No fluff or redundancy; every clause earns its place.

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 summary tool with no output schema, the description lists all returned fields, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It doesn't mention error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid ID), but given the simplicity and read-only nature, this is adequate.

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% with descriptions for all four parameters, but the description adds crucial semantics by explaining the mutually exclusive id/url relationship and that type is only used with id. This clarifies how the parameters work together, exceeding what the schema alone provides.

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 states exactly what the tool does: returns a minimal summary of one item with a specific list of fields, explicitly excluding the body. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_content (which returns full content) and get_content_by_slug/find_content_by_url by focusing on the summary-only output and its audit/lookup purpose.

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 provides a clear use case ('Built for audits and lookups over many items') and explains the input alternatives (id with type or URL). It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or state when NOT to use it (e.g., if you need the body, use get_content), but the field list and 'without the body' make the intended use unmistakable.

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