content_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it discloses almost nothing: not whether the call is read-only (implied only by the prepositional phrase), not auth requirements, and not what happens when the id is unknown. With an output schema present, return shape is partly covered elsewhere, but the failure and permission behavior remains undocumented.

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?

It is short, but it is a noun fragment rather than a front-loaded sentence, and the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. There is nothing to front-load because no useful information is present.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with one required parameter and an output schema, so the bar is modest, yet the definition still omits id format, read-only nature, and error behavior. An agent could construct the call but could not confidently predict what it does or how to handle failure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lone page_id parameter and does not. It never states whether page_id is a numeric CMS id, a UUID, or a slug, nor any format constraint — "by id" adds no meaning beyond the parameter name itself.

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?

"A CMS content page by id" is essentially a restatement of the tool name plus the single required parameter; there is no verb and no statement of what retrieving the page yields. It is distantly distinguishable from the sibling list only because none of them mention CMS content, not because the description differentiates it.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. An agent gets no signal about whether this is for fetching marketing copy, navigation structure, or embedded page data, nor any prerequisite.

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