Get Page Content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description correctly aligns with those. It adds value by specifying that the tool returns both the editable content and the field schema, which is a behavioral detail not covered by the annotations. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds meaningful information. There is no fluff or redundant repetition of the schema or annotations.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is returned (content + schema), why it is useful (before updating), and how to obtain the key. It is sufficiently complete for a simple read operation.

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?

The input schema already provides a description and example for the 'key' parameter, so baseline is 3. The tool description enhances this by adding the source of the key ('from list_pages') and a concrete usage example ('page:home'), which goes beyond the schema's static example by tying it to a sibling tool and a real workflow.

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 has a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a page's current editable content plus its field schema'. It clearly distinguishes itself from update_page_content by noting the purpose is to know the exact shape before updating. This is more than just a restatement of the tool name.

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 phrase 'before updating' gives clear context for when to use this tool, and 'Use the key from list_pages' tells the user exactly where to obtain the required parameter. It does not explicitly name the sibling tool update_page_content as the alternative, but the implication is strong enough for an agent to infer the appropriate workflow.

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