get_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that returned content is Markdown and that pages may be Confluence or crawled external websites (useful scope context), but it says nothing about permissions/auth, pagination or truncation of long pages, caching interplay with refresh_cache, or error behavior for invalid IDs. Adequate but incomplete for a read tool with zero 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?

Front-loaded with the action and return type, followed by one sentence of usage guidance and one short Args entry. No filler, every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values. It covers purpose, upstream tooling, content format, and page-type scope. The remaining gap is behavioral detail (permissions, truncation) that no annotation supplies, but for a simple single-param reader the description is nearly complete.

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, and it does: it explains page_id is 'The page ID from search_pages or list_pages results,' telling the agent where the value originates. With only one parameter, this is close to complete; it lacks only format/length details, which are minor given the provenance guidance.

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?

Specific verb (Retrieve) plus resource (full Markdown content of a specific page by ID), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by naming search_pages and list_pages as the upstream producers of the ID. An agent can immediately tell this is the read-full-content step after a search/list.

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 it: 'Use this after search_pages to read the complete content of a result.' It names the alternative workflow (search_pages/list_pages for discovery, this for full content), which is exactly the routing an agent needs.

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