get_page

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

The description discloses that it returns a string with page elements and layout, and lists all required parameters, including user_google_email for authentication. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe error conditions or rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially covers behavioral 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 well-structured with a purpose sentence, Args list, and Returns section, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is slightly verbose with repetitive 'page/slide' phrasing and contains a typo ('thepresentation'), but it remains efficient and readable.

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 with three required parameters and a string return value, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter meaning, and return type. However, it lacks guidance on how it relates to sibling tools such as get_page_thumbnail and does not mention edge cases, though these are not critical for this straightforward get tool.

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 description includes a full 'Args' section explaining user_google_email, presentation_id, and page_object_id. This adds meaning beyond the input schema, which has no parameter descriptions (schema coverage 0%). Each parameter is clearly defined, compensating fully for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Get details about a specific page (slide) in a presentation,' providing a specific verb and resource. It also mentions 'elements and layout,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_presentation (whole deck) and get_page_thumbnail (thumbnail image).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_presentation or get_page_thumbnail. The description only states what it does, without any 'use this when...' or 'use alternative when...' instructions.

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