get_openemr_wiki_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals two behavioral traits: output is plain text, and long pages are truncated at 8000 characters. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens when a title or section is not found.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the primary action is front-loaded and the optional-section behavior follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 low-complexity two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (plain text) and the key edge case (truncation). Minor gaps around error behavior for missing pages/sections keep it short of a 5.

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 parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the case-insensitive partial-match semantics and truncation rationale. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (OpenEMR wiki page content), and names the return format (plain-text). It implicitly separates itself from search_openemr_wiki and get_users_guide_toc by being the page-content fetcher, but never names those siblings or contrasts with them explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition for the optional section parameter (long pages, to avoid truncation), which is genuinely useful guidance. However it offers no routing guidance versus search_openemr_wiki or get_users_guide_toc, so the agent must infer when this tool is the right entry point.

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