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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds real value beyond them: the shape of the no-argument result (categories + page titles + one-line summaries, or a tiered overview for large wikis), the recursive drill-down behavior, and the case-exact reuse requirement. The explicit idempotency sentence slightly duplicates idempotentHint.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger, then modes, then sibling routing — a logical order with no filler. It is on the dense side at five sentences, and the closing idempotency sentence is the weakest since the annotation already covers it.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns — and it does, covering both the flat and tiered overview cases plus the drill-down result. For a single optional parameter with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 adds meaning beyond it: it explains that omitting category_path yields the top-level TOC, that a value drills INTO that category showing subcategories plus pages, and that deeper paths can be chained. The 'reuse exactly as shown' note also signals a format/case constraint the schema does not.

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 — retrieve the wiki's table of contents / outline and drill into categories — and explicitly distinguishes itself from eigma_search_wiki (concept lookup) and eigma_read_page (full body). An agent can route to it 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 explicit when-to-use triggers (plan where a page belongs, browse structure before an edit) and names the two alternatives with the conditions that select them. It also explains the no-argument vs. category_path modes, so the branching is unambiguous.

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