get_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and succeeds: it reveals that layoutSections is omitted by default due to size, that include_content is needed for module content, and what the draft parameter does. These are non-obvious behaviors not present in the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then the key omission behavior, then parameter explanations. Every sentence adds information, and the Args block earns its place because schema descriptions are absent.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description supplies the only hidden context an agent needs: default content trimming, draft mode, and when to request full content. Nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, so the description must explain every parameter, and it does. It defines all four args, adds meaning to include_content (only before editing) and draft (draft vs live), and clarifies page_type values.

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 the specific operation 'Fetch one landing or site page,' naming both verb and resource. The word 'one' and the page_type split clearly differentiate it from the list_* sibling tools without requiring schema inspection.

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?

It gives clear operational context: a single page fetch with a compact default, and instructs to set include_content only when about to edit module content. It does not explicitly name alternative get/list tools for different resources, but the single-page scope and page_type constrain when it applies.

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