get_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating the response includes the full HTML body and is returned 'in full', which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not list rate limits or access requirements, but this is mostly unnecessary for a simple read-only fetch.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action. Every phrase earns its place: 'one' clarifies scope, 'static page' distinguishes from posts, and 'including its HTML body' adds concrete return-value context.

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 is a simple two-parameter read-only fetch and an output schema exists, the description is nearly complete. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit parameter guidance and routing to list_pages for page discovery, but for the tool's low complexity this is a minor shortcoming.

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% and the description provides no parameter details. The parameter names blog_id and page_id are somewhat self-descriptive and both are marked required, but the description does not explain their roles, formats, or how an agent should obtain valid values. With low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 ('Fetch'), names the resource ('one static page'), and adds valuable scope details ('in full', 'including its HTML body'). It is clearly distinguished from list_pages, get_post, and other siblings.

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 implies use when an agent needs to retrieve a single static page by ID, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. An agent can infer list_pages is for listing and get_post is for posts, but the guidance is implicit rather than direct.

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