get_documentation_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does not mention what happens if the URL is not indexed, what 'complete' means in terms of response size, whether the URL must be canonical, or any error conditions. The phrase 'by URL' hints at a direct lookup but lacks depth about side effects or limitations.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It includes the core action and key parameter mechanism, making it easy to parse. There is no unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple (one param), but the description omits essential context. Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the 'complete indexed documentation page' contains (e.g., HTML content, metadata, links), but it does not. It also gives no indication of how the response is structured or what errors might occur. The description is minimally viable but leaves significant gaps.

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. It only restates that a URL is used ('Retrieve ... by URL') without adding meaning beyond the schema's 'url' property with format 'uri'. It does not clarify what constitutes a valid documentation page URL, how the URL should be encoded, or whether it must match a previously crawled URL.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('complete indexed documentation page'), and clearly identifies the input ('by URL'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools: crawl_documentation (creates the index), search_documentation (finds pages), and crawler_status (monitors crawling). It fully states what the tool does.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the page must already be crawled/indexed), no exclusions, and no comparison to search_documentation. The only implied usage is 'have a URL, get the page,' but this is not enough to navigate among siblings.

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