Get page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: deterministic results ('Every address always returns the same content') and that most addresses contain gibberish. It does not mention error handling or output format, but for a simple read operation these are less critical.

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 three sentences with no wasted words: purpose, determinism, and coordinate/usage guidance. Each sentence earns its place, 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a solid amount of context: purpose, coordinate ranges, deterministic behavior, and tool-selection guidance. It leaves out explicit failure semantics and return value details, but it is largely complete for deterministic page retrieval.

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 coverage is only 20% (hexagon), so the description compensates by listing all five coordinates with their ranges and explaining hexagon as a base-36 string id. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, though it stops short of mentioning default values for optional parameters.

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 ('Retrieve the exact text') and resource ('a page at a given address in the Library of Babel'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like search_text by emphasizing direct address-based retrieval.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Almost every address is gibberish — meaningful pages are found via search_text, not by browsing.' This names an alternative tool and states when not to use get_page, while also implying it should be used for direct, known-address retrieval.

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