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. 'Get' implies a non-mutating read and the description usefully discloses the payload composition (canvas layout, web parts), but it says nothing about permissions, error behavior for missing pages, or payload size/cost.

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 no filler; the resource and the returned content scope are stated immediately. Every clause 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 takes on the return-value burden and does so adequately ('full content ... canvas layout and web parts'). However, it leaves the siteId parameter entirely unexplained and gives no hint about what 'full content' contains structurally, so an agent lacks enough to call it confidently in ambiguous cases.

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 50%: pageId has an uninformative 'Page ID' description and siteId has none at all. The description adds nothing about either parameter, such as ID formats, where to obtain siteId, or whether pageId is site-scoped, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb+resource ('Get the full content of a page') and scopes the return payload with 'including canvas layout and web parts'. This meaningfully separates it from list_pages and implies a contrast with get_page_layout, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_pages or get_page_layout, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that a site must be connected first via connect_to_site). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and sibling list.

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