Pages Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the required authorization scope (read_content) and API version, which is genuinely useful context, but nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid page ID.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the purpose, then endpoint, scope, and version. Nothing redundant and no filler.

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 single-resource read with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. A brief note on what a page record contains or the response_format trade-off would close the remaining gap, though the response_format param is already described in the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents pageID, fields, and response_format (including the enum). The description only reinforces that pageID is a path parameter via the endpoint notation, adding little beyond the schema.

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 one page') and pins it to the HTTP endpoint GET /pages/{pageID}, which distinguishes it from the sibling tiendanube_pages_list. It does not explicitly name the list sibling, but the singular framing makes the distinction obvious.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'Get one page' versus the sibling list tool. The description does give a required scope (read_content), which is a practical prerequisite, but it never states when to prefer this over pages_list.

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