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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't cover aspects like authentication requirements (implied by 'user_google_email'), rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral traits needed for safe invocation.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are slightly redundant given the structured fields. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values, but overall it leaves gaps in transparency and guidance.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that lists and briefly describes the three parameters, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., what a 'page_object_id' looks like), sources, or constraints, leaving gaps. With schema coverage low, the description compensates partially but not fully.

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 purpose: 'Get details about a specific page (slide) in a presentation.' It specifies the verb ('Get details'), resource ('page/slide'), and context ('in a presentation'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_presentation' or 'get_page_thumbnail', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_presentation' (for overall presentation details) or 'get_page_thumbnail' (for visual thumbnails), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description, lacking explicit context.

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