get_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval operation ('Get details') and describes the return value as a string containing page details, elements, and layout. While it does not discuss auth or error behavior, it gives sufficient transparency for a simple getter.

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 well-structured, with a clear purpose sentence followed by a minimal Args/Returns breakdown. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no redundant filler.

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 retrieval tool with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool does, what inputs are needed, and what kind of result to expect. It could be improved by adding guidance on how this tool relates to sibling presentation tools, but that gap is already captured in the usage dimension.

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 compensates by documenting all three parameters: user_google_email, presentation_id, and page_object_id, each with a short explanation of its role. The descriptions are somewhat generic but add meaning beyond the bare schema names and types.

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 'Get details about a specific page (slide) in a presentation,' which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_presentation, which targets the entire presentation, and get_page_thumbnail, which returns an image rather than structural details.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_presentation, get_page_thumbnail, or batch_update_presentation. Usage context is only implied by the wording 'Get details about a specific page,' with no mention of exclusions or conditions that would select a different tool.

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