get_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly describes the returned data scope and the idOrSlug lookup, and 'Get' implies a read-only operation. It does not mention error behavior, permissions, or the draft/devDraft nuance itself, but the input schema covers the target behavior and the description still gives a solid behavioral contract.

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 with no filler. The return contract is front-loaded and the usage guidance is cleanly separated in the second sentence. The parenthetical list of returned fields is long but each item 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?

With no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned fields is the main return contract, and it is sufficiently detailed. The schema supplies the target and idOrSlug details. It would be slightly better if the description itself noted that the default result is the shared draft, but the enum description already handles that.

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 fully documents both parameters, including the target enum's default and devDraft behavior and where idOrSlug comes from. The description only adds 'id or slug', which is already in the schema, so it does not meaningfully extend parameter understanding. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema description coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one page's full details', then enumerates exactly what is returned (blocks, layout, page type, custom fields, SEO fields per language). It also names the lookup mechanism (id or slug), which clearly distinguishes it from listing or page-type-related sibling tools.

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 explicitly says to use it 'when the user asks about a specific page's content, structure or SEO', giving a clear trigger condition. It does not name alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use cases, but the stated usage scope is enough to route an agent to this tool correctly.

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