Get a WordPress page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the key non-obvious behavior: the response contains both content.rendered (compiled) and content.raw (stored source, e.g. Avada shortcodes or Gutenberg markup). It omits that context=edit typically requires authentication/permissions and says nothing about 404 or invalid-ID behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then the rendered/raw distinction and its practical use. Every clause earns its place, though the dash-embedded middle clause packs multiple ideas into one long sentence where a shorter break would read better.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns, and it does so well by contrasting content.rendered and content.raw. The remaining gap is auth/permission behavior implied by context=edit, which an agent would need to know before calling it.

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 'id' parameter is fully documented there as the numeric WordPress page ID. The description restates 'by ID' but adds no format, range, or lookup detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Fetch a single page by ID'), which immediately separates it from the plural list_pages sibling. The endpoint and context=edit are given inline, so the agent knows exactly what will be retrieved without opening the schema.

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?

It gives real usage direction: 'use content.raw to learn a site's real authoring syntax before writing new content,' which ties this read tool to the create_page/update_page siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or stating when-not to use it, so it is context-rich but not a full routing rule.

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