get_page_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely beyond that: it characterizes the return as the authoritative contract, names the draft version, and enumerates the node fields (id/type/specials/runtime{style,config}/children/events/bindings) in the CSS-grid model.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource before the contract details and the validate_page pointer. The parenthetical field list is information-rich rather than filler, though it slightly burdens the sentence.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of conveying the return value, and it does so by describing the schema shape and its node fields. For a zero-param read tool this is close to complete, with only the draft/version dependency left implicit.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument fetch.

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 ('Get') and resource (the authoritative JSON Schema for a page source), and scopes it precisely as the Draft 2020-12 structural contract. It contrasts cleanly with sibling validate_page, which the agent can distinguish without opening either schema.

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?

Tells the agent how to apply the result ('Use it as the shape to emit') and names the complementary alternative validate_page with its distinct role (semantic rule enforcement). No explicit 'when not to use' is given, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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