Get page sharing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description contributes some behavioral value by describing the returned content (who can open, expiry date), which is useful given the absence of an output schema, but it says nothing about auth requirements, permission preconditions, or error behavior.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key output information front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient - it tells the agent what comes back. It falls short on the parameter's expected value, auth/permission context, and when to reach for it over set_page_sharing.

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?

There is 1 parameter with 0% schema description coverage - pageId carries only type/minLength in the schema, and the description never mentions it or its expected format. The name is largely self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (page sharing) and even enumerates what the answer contains: who can open the page and expiry. This distinguishes it implicitly from the write-side sibling set_page_sharing, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the natural alternative set_page_sharing (to modify sharing) or get_page. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'Get'.

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