get_page_content

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with the read operation described. The description adds value by specifying that the content is untruncated and that media is reported explicitly, offering behavioral details beyond the annotation.

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 concise and front-loaded, with exactly two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and notable output behavior without unnecessary 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?

Given that annotations and schema are already rich (readOnlyHint, full param coverage), the description sufficiently covers the tool's core behavior. It doesn't describe return format details like pagination, but no output schema exists and the description covers the primary use, making it reasonably complete.

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 schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds minimal additional meaning but the schema does the heavy lifting, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves the full content body of a specific page, distinguishing it from related tools like get_page_details or list_pages by emphasizing the full, untruncated HTML body and explicit media inventory.

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 usage for retrieving complete page content and explicitly mentions that it returns raw HTML and media inventory, which differentiates it from other page-related tools. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or exact alternative references, but the context is clear.

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