Get page details

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, open-world operation. The description adds value by listing what data is returned, but it does not cover behavioral details such as error handling, required permissions, or pagination, which are less critical for a simple get 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the returned details without unnecessary wording.

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-only get tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the returned content. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly routing from list_pages, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, and the single page_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as coming from list_pages. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline 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?

The description clearly states it returns details for one campaign page and enumerates the fields included (type, subtype, status, locale, base URL, template, tracking parameters, attributes). It distinguishes the single-page scope from list_pages by implication, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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 explicit guidance on when to use get_page versus list_pages or other sibling tools. The description only states what details are returned, leaving the selection context to inference.

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