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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a dictionary with complete details and JSON-formatted content, which adds some context about the output format. However, it lacks critical information such as whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits, leaving significant gaps for a tool that fetches detailed data.

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 and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose. The second sentence adds value by specifying the return format. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from returns more clearly). Overall, it's efficient and 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (fetching detailed page data), the description is partially complete. It benefits from a rich input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), so it doesn't need to explain parameters or return values in detail. However, with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, error cases) to be fully adequate for safe use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with 'page_id' documented as 'The unique Productive page identifier.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get specific page/document details with full content.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('page/document details with full content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pages' (which likely lists pages) or 'get_attachments' (which might retrieve files), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'get_pages' (for listing) or 'quick_search' (for broader queries), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit context for selection.

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