get_landing_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication (API key), concurrency limit (max 10), idempotency (read-only, safe to retry), and error behavior (404). This is sufficient for a read-only 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?

The description is concise, using a few well-structured sentences. It front-loads the main purpose, then provides usage guidance, behavioral notes, and parameter/return details. No redundancy.

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 simplicity (single parameter, read-only), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter source, error handling, constraints, and return format (listed fields). The output schema exists, but the description still provides a useful summary.

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 only provides the parameter name and type. The description adds that page_id is alphanumeric and can be obtained from list_landing_pages, which adds meaningful context beyond the schema. The 0% schema coverage means the description fully compensates.

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 it retrieves full details of a landing page, including description and tracking settings. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_landing_pages, create_landing_page, etc., by focusing on a single resource retrieval.

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 advises using list_landing_pages to discover page IDs, providing a clear alternative. It also notes error handling (404 for invalid page_id), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, hence a 4.

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