get_page_source

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 useful behavioral context by specifying what data the overview returns (counts plus custom CSS classes), which tells the agent what to expect without a formal output schema. It omits pagination or rate-limit behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the useful scoping and return-content information is front-loaded, and the routing guidance follows immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in by listing what the response contains, and the annotation covers the read-only safety profile. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool, though it stops short of describing the response's structure or shape.

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 the single page_id parameter is already documented by the schema. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3 when schema fields do the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get page source overview') and enumerates the exact return contents (section count, element type counts, custom CSS classes). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_page_elements, so an agent can route 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?

Explicitly prescribes an order: 'Use this first, then use search_page_elements to find specific elements.' This names the alternative and the condition that selects it. However, it does not mention other plausible alternatives such as get_page_schema or list_page_contents, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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