read_page

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real value on top: the full return contents, the 'in one call' hint that no pagination is needed, and the warning that the id is opaque and must never be guessed from a title. It stops short of noting what happens on a missing/stale id, which keeps it off 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the payload, then the usage routing, then the id caveat. No repetition of annotation or schema content and no 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating exactly what comes back (title, body, status, Space, cited memories). Combined with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the ASCII/hyphen format rules and the session format. The description only reinforces the opaque-id constraint already in the schema, so it adds little beyond structured data — baseline 3.

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 (read) and resource (one wiki page) plus the exact payload returned: title, body, status, Space, and cited source memories. It explicitly contrasts with list_pages and recall, so an agent can distinguish it from snippet-returning siblings without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it after list_pages or recall when the user wants the page itself rather than search snippets.' That names both the sequencing and the alternative behavior, leaving nothing to infer about when this tool is the right pick.

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