get-page-content

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

Annotations already mark this read-only, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral and output context by enumerating the returned fields and emphasizing the full HTML body, which is not provided by the schema or 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?

One compact sentence with a clear action, resource, lookup method, and a tight list of return values. Every word serves a purpose and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read operation, the description is complete: it explains how to look up the page and exactly what to expect in the response. Since the annotation declares read-only behavior and the schema fully documents the parameters, no additional context is needed. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit field list.

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 input schema covers both parameters fully, including the meaning of pageUrl as a URL slug. The description only echoes pageUrl's schema description and does not add constraints, defaults, or examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with 'Get the full content of a page by URL slug,' clearly specifying the action, resource, and lookup method. It lists the concrete return fields (title, slug, page ID, published status, last-updated timestamp, HTML body), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-pages or update-page-content.

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 phrase 'full content' implies this is the detailed read tool, and the requirement of a URL slug indicates when it applies. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to sibling tools like list-pages or list-page-revisions.

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