get_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the version-resolution rule (draft if one exists, else published) and enumerating what is returned (name, slug, status, revision, full data map), which is real behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Three well-formed sentences, each earning its place: the return shape is front-loaded, then the merge workflow, then the alternative tool. Zero 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 single-item read with no output schema, the description names the returned fields and the resolution behavior, and covers the mutation workflow it feeds into. An agent has everything required to call it correctly and use its result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds actionable meaning by tying the returned `revision` value to the subsequent update_content call with merge:false, which is not expressed in the schema and clarifies how the returned fields are meant to be consumed.

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 (Read) and resource (content item for editing) with precise scope: the working version, resolving draft-vs-published, in one locale. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling delivery_get_by_id, so an agent can separate the editing view from the delivery view without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('read this before update_content so you merge into current values') and an exclusion routing the agent to the alternative ('To see what visitors get instead... use delivery_get_by_id'). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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