get_access_custom_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe the returned shape, not-found behavior, required permissions, or any error/side-effect context.

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 filler or redundancy. It is concise, though the word 'details' is somewhat generic and could be more informative.

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 two-parameter getter with fully documented parameters, this is marginally sufficient. However, with no output schema and no mention of how to obtain 'custom_page_id' or what 'details' contains, the description leaves some context for an agent to infer.

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 'account_id' and 'custom_page_id' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond identifying the target resource, which matches the baseline for high schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Access custom page'), clearly stating what the tool operates on. It is distinguishable from the sibling 'list_access_custom_pages', though it does not explicitly call out that it retrieves a single page by ID.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_access_custom_pages' or other getter tools. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer selection context.

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