get_page

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the page being 'complete' and 'canonical' and notes that chunk citations are included, which enriches response expectations beyond annotations.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded and without any filler or redundant phrases.

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?

The output schema covers return details, and annotations provide the safety profile. The description covers purpose and a key output trait, which is sufficient for a single-parameter retrieval tool; no critical gaps are evident.

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 only parameter 'url' is self-evident from the tool name and description, but the description adds no format or constraint guidance. With 0% schema description coverage, the description offers minimal extra semantic value beyond the obvious.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('one complete indexed canonical page'), with a distinguishing detail ('including chunk citations'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling search and related-page 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 when a specific URL is known and the complete indexed page is needed. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the resource type is distinct from sibling tools that search, list, or get related pages.

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