coda_get_page_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. Description adds valuable behavioral context: returns content in HTML or markdown, marks markdown as lossy for complex content. This goes beyond the annotations to inform agent behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every sentence provides necessary information: purpose, output format, usage guidance and lossy warning.

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 has 3 fully described parameters, annotations for safety and idempotency, and an output schema (present but not shown), the description completes the picture by explaining the return content type and usage differentiation. No gaps identified.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'in the specified format' referencing output_format, but does not add new semantic information beyond the schema's enum and descriptions. No improvement over schema.

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 'Get the text content of a page in a Coda doc' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool coda_get_page by noting that the latter is for metadata only.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this for reading page text — use coda_get_page for metadata only.' It also mentions that markdown output may be lossy, implying when HTML might be preferred. Could be slightly more explicit about when to choose each format, but overall clear.

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