get_doc_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about the ID provenance (from create_doc/update_doc_page) and the content_format values, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or return structure. This is adequate but not exceptional given the strong annotation coverage.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement, a usage guideline sentence, and a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded. The formatting is clean and easy to scan.

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 read-only tool with only 3 parameters (2 required), an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and usage context. Return values are not described, but the output schema exists, so that is acceptable. No significant gaps remain.

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. The Args section does this by explaining that doc_id and page_id are 'as returned by create_doc', and content_format lists allowed values ('text/md' default or 'text/plain'). This goes beyond the schema, which only specifies types and a default without allowed values. It is a helpful compensation for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get a single Doc page's content.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'Doc page' are specific, and 'single' distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_doc_pages which likely retrieves multiple pages. It also references the doc_id/page_id pair pattern from update_doc_page, further clarifying its 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?

The description provides clear usage context: 'most useful when you already have both IDs from a prior create_doc/update_doc_page call.' This tells the agent when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_doc_pages or get_doc, nor does it state when not to use it. Thus it has clear context but lacks exclusions.

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