get_page

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real operational context: a two-stage retrieval strategy (page-preview endpoint first, then HTML parsing fallback) and the fact that section text is capped and flagged via "truncated". This tells the agent results may be partial and where the cap signal lives. It stops short of explaining failure modes when both retrieval paths fail.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the retrieval strategy and cap caveat in two compact sentences. No filler. The trailing parenthetical reference to the output-schema field "truncated" is slightly indirect but functional.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, and annotations carry the safety profile, which the description sensibly does not repeat. The remaining gap is the sole input: slug's expected format is documented nowhere. Adequate but incomplete for actually invoking the tool correctly.

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?

There is exactly one parameter, slug, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full documentation burden. It never defines the slug's format, whether it is derived from the page URL, or whether it is case-sensitive. "Grokipedia page" only loosely implies the identifier, leaving the agent to infer a required input shape.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Fetch a Grokipedia page") and enumerates what comes back: title, summary, sections, citations, URL. This makes it distinguishable in kind from get_page_section and get_page_citations, which return subsets. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the three siblings are named. An agent must guess that this is the aggregate call versus the narrower get_page_section/get_page_citations. Listing returned fields hints at that relationship but does not state it.

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