Get Page Content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves content but lacks details on permissions required, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), rate limits, or output format (e.g., text, HTML, metadata). This is inadequate for a tool that presumably interacts with a content system, leaving key operational traits unspecified.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get full content of a specific page') with zero wasted words. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error cases, or output structure, which are critical for reliable invocation. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'Page ID' with a numeric type and minimum value. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the ID identifies a 'specific page'. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, the baseline score of 3 applies, as the description doesn't enhance understanding of the parameter's use or constraints.

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 the action ('Get full content') and resource ('of a specific page'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_pages' (plural) and 'search_pages' by specifying retrieval of a single page's full content. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'export_page' which might serve a similar purpose, preventing a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid page ID), exclusions (e.g., not for partial content), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_pages' for lists or 'export_page' for formatted exports. This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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