get_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the constraint that URLs should come from search tools (a behavioral trait), but it does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or behavior around the max_chars parameter. It is safe to assume a fetch is read-only, but the description does not explicitly confirm it.

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 two sentences long, with the core action upfront and the usage context in the second sentence. Every word earns its place, and it is highly efficient without any fluff.

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?

This is a simple fetch tool with an output schema, and the description gives enough context for the main use case (feed it a URL from search). The missing information about 'max_chars' and error behavior is a minor gap, but the tool's simplicity keeps the description largely adequate.

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. It adds meaning to the 'url' parameter by specifying it comes from search tools, but it completely omits any explanation of 'max_chars', leaving that parameter undocumented. The description only partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 content') and the resource ('an Ignition documentation page'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by specifying that it retrieves content for a given URL, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to use URLs returned by the sibling search tools, providing clear workflow guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives. This is a direct 'when to use' pointer that prevents misuse.

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