Get Wiki Page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal context beyond the schema, such as "single" resource and "by id" retrieval, but does not describe response format, error behavior, or authorization requirements. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It states exactly what the tool does and is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-id operation, earning its place without any wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, 100% schema coverage, annotations for read-only), the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation. It clearly identifies the resource and key parameter (id), and the verbosity parameter is fully explained in the schema. While it does not mention return values or disambiguate explicitly from wiki_page_get_by_slug, the "by id" phrasing covers the most likely confusion. This makes it nearly complete for a simple getter.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, including a detailed explanation of verbosity with enum meanings. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema itself does the heavy lifting.

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 "Get a single wiki_page by id" clearly specifies a verb (get), a resource (wiki_page), and a scope (single by id). This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like wiki_page_get_by_slug and wiki_page_list, which are separate tools.

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 implies usage through the phrase "by id": if the agent has a resource id, this tool is the appropriate choice. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as wiki_page_get_by_slug, leaving the contrast to be inferred.

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