get_page

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as potential size of responses, rate limits, or what 'full page' implies regarding content type. It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal value.

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 concise, using a single sentence for the main purpose. The additional paragraph explaining 'intent' is structured clearly and is useful, though it might be better placed in the schema. No redundant text or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not mention any limitations, edge cases, or what 'plain text' includes (e.g., Wikitext vs rendered text). For a full-page fetch, more detail could help.

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 0%, but the description explains the 'intent' parameter with examples ('background on the Suez crisis for an essay'). However, the 'title' parameter is not described, though its meaning is likely obvious. The description partially compensates for the lack of schema 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 'Fetch a full Wikipedia page as plain text', with a specific verb (fetch), a clear resource (full Wikipedia page), and an output format (plain text). It distinguishes from siblings like get_section and get_summaries by focusing on the full page.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_section or get_summaries. It does not mention any prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it. The intent parameter's explanation is about the parameter, not about tool selection.

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