Get DataLens HTML page

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a key behavioral detail: the response contains no HTML body, which prevents a likely agent misjudgment. However it doesn't describe what the response does contain (layout location, revisions) in more depth, nor revision resolution behavior beyond the schema.

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 short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the core return description and followed by the critical disambiguation. 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 getter with a fully documented schema and clear annotations, the description covers the main gotcha (no HTML returned) and the discovery path. It lacks detail on the revision model or response shape, but an output schema is absent so some ambiguity remains around what exactly is returned.

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%, so all five parameters (entry_id, branch, rev_id, include_favorite, include_permissions) are documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or the branch/rev_id mutual exclusion beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('One HTML page: where it lies and its revisions') and distinguishes from the preview tool. It is clear what is returned, though it doesn't explicitly name the datalens_htmlpages_get siblings (create/update/delete) since the verb+resource already disambiguates.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'The reply has no HTML of the page; htmlpages_preview_url_get gives a link that shows it' and routes to entries_list with the artifact scope for discovering pages. Clear when-to-use and named alternatives.

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