get_page_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format and scope limitation (no areas/blocks). It implies a read-only operation ('Review', 'Returns') but does not explicitly confirm no side effects or authentication needs. Still, the provided context is strong for a read tool.

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?

Three efficient sentences: purpose and return type, usage preference, and scope limitation. Every sentence provides distinct value without redundancy, making it concise and well-structured.

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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers purpose, return types, and scope. It gives an agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly without missing critical behavioral 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?

The input schema covers both parameters (pageID and version) with descriptions, enum, and default. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail; it only references behavior. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reviews a Concrete CMS page as a document, lists return types (sanitized HTML, raw HTML, plain text), and distinguishes itself from getPageById with includes=content. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 'Prefer this over getPageById with includes=content when summarizing or reading page copy' and notes 'Does not return areas/blocks', giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. This effectively differentiates from the sibling get-page-by-id.

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