Get Page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that lookup is by slug rather than numeric ID, which is minor useful context, but says nothing about not-found behavior (e.g. 404 for a missing slug) or permission requirements. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core action and lookup key come first. It is efficient, though it leaves room to add routing or error context at essentially no length cost.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter read tool with an output schema (return values need no explanation), full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is behavioral edge cases such as missing-slug handling rather than core invocation details.

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 100% and both parameters (course_id, page_url) are documented with an example slug in the schema itself. The description only restates the page_url semantics, adding no format, casing, or naming-convention detail beyond what the schema already provides, so this sits at the baseline 3.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Get a single wiki page') plus the lookup key ('by its URL slug'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings such as list_pages, create_page, update_page, or get_file, so it does not reach a 5.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent to prefer list_pages when the slug is unknown, or that create_page/update_page exist for writes; the single-page vs single-item distinction is left entirely to inference from the name.

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