get_page

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

No annotations are provided, leaving the description responsible for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not confirm safety, permissions, error behavior, or what 'relationships' actually entails. The vague 'optional relationships' adds little transparency.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, 'optional relationships' is imprecise and could be more specific, slightly reducing its effectiveness.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what an Aha! page is, what relationships are available beyond the includeParent flag, or how the tool behaves in error cases. More context is needed for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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% with both parameters documented. The description adds 'by reference number' and 'optional relationships', but these are already implied or covered by the schema. It provides no additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 tool gets an Aha! page by reference number, identifying both the resource type and the lookup method. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_record, making it less distinct than ideal.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_record or search_documents. It does not state any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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