get_page

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

No annotations are provided. The description only states that it fetches text, without disclosing behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, whether it follows redirects, or what happens if the URL is invalid. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 fetch tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It could mention the dependency on search_pi_docs for the URL, but the schema parameter description includes this. The description is adequate for a straightforward tool.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the fetch action. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters.

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 states the action ('Fetch the text') and the resource ('a PI System documentation page by URL'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search_pi_docs' by specifying a different operation (fetching vs searching).

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 after obtaining a URL from search_pi_docs (as noted in the schema for the 'url' parameter), but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned.

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