content_read_page

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It states read-only, public, only published pages returned, and mentions return type. Lacks explicit statement of no side effects or idempotency, but overall behavior is transparent.

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?

Structured with USE CASE, IDENTIFIER, NOTE, RETURNS headers. Front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value, no filler. Could be slightly more concise, but overall well-organized.

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, so description should detail return structure. It says 'Single page object with requested fields and related data,' which is vague. No mention of error handling or consistency guarantees. Adequate but lacking detail for full completeness.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of id and slug ('not both'), which is not in the schema. Also explains the purpose of the include and formats parameters implicitly.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read a single published page by ID or slug (read-only, public content).' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like content_browse_pages (browsing) and content_read_author (different resource) by explicitly stating it's for a single page and public content.

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?

Includes explicit use cases, identifier constraint ('provide either id OR slug, not both'), and a note directing to admin_read_page for drafts/scheduled pages. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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