get_page_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'Retrieves' content, which implies a read operation, but does not disclose pagination behavior, output format implications, authentication requirements, or any potential size limitations. The schema's 'format' parameter suggests significant behavioral variation that the description ignores.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides a usage trigger. Every piece of text 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values and behavior. It does not mention that the 'format' parameter changes the response shape, nor does it clarify what 'content blocks' means or how the result differs from get_page. The description is too minimal for an agent to fully understand consequences of invocation.

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 both parameters ('page_id' and 'format') are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as guidance on choosing between markdown, blocks, or plain_text. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Retrieve all content blocks') and the resource ('a page'). It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling 'get_page', which likely fetches page metadata, though it does not explicitly name that sibling as an alternative.

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 an explicit usage condition: 'Use when user wants to read the full content of a page.' This gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate, though it does not discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_page' for metadata-only requests.

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