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

Annotations declare read-only, but the description adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot: near-miss slug aliasing (alias_of), directory-listing overlap (also_listing), and the key contract that an unknown slug is a miss rather than an error and returns nearest-slug suggestions. It even documents the specific edge case that 'what-is-sato-score' misses and redirects to get_score_methodology.

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?

Header-delimited USE WHEN / NOT FOR / RETURNS / Example structure is front-loaded and scannable, with the primary trigger in the first clause. The RETURNS paragraph is dense and packs aliasing, listing overlap, and miss semantics into one long block, which costs it a point but every sentence carries information.

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 return-shape burden and does so fully: it enumerates the page sections (summary, why it matters, how it works, components, examples, risks, related). Combined with miss/alias behavior and a concrete example call, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret results.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining slug matching semantics (near-miss and bare-slug resolution) that the schema's one-line 'wiki page slug' description does not. It does not add anything about response_format beyond what the enum already conveys.

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 wiki page') and immediately scopes it to 'explain a crypto-agent concept'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_resource for specific projects and get_score_methodology for the Sato Score, so an agent can route without opening any 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?

Explicit USE WHEN clause with concrete triggers ('what x402 is', 'how agents hold wallets', 'what ERC-8004 does') and an explicit NOT FOR clause naming two alternatives with their conditions. It also points to list_wiki_pages for slug discovery, covering the full call path.

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