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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety needs no restatement. The description still adds real behavior beyond them: newest-first ordering, a 200-item result ceiling, and the permission model (site admin vs. colony moderators). It does not note pagination or how to reach results beyond 200, which keeps it short of 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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then scoping, then the restore hand-off, and ending with the raw endpoint for traceability. Slightly awkward phrasing ('the site-wide wiki's for a site admin') costs it a point but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What an agent still needs — ordering, result cap, required privileges, and the restore path — is all present, making the definition self-sufficient.

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 the colony parameter is already richly documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description does add genuine meaning the schema lacks: the authorization consequence of passing colony (that colony's wiki, for its moderators only), which helps the agent decide whether the call is even valid for its caller.

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 ('List deleted wiki pages') plus ordering and a hard cap ('most recently deleted first (up to 200)'), which no sibling like colony_wiki_history provides. The scope split between the site-wide wiki and a colony wiki further distinguishes it from the create/edit/get wiki family.

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 says who should call it in each mode ('the site-wide wiki's for a site admin, or with colony that colony's for its moderators') and routes the follow-up action to the right sibling: 'Restore one with colony_restore_wiki_page'. The when-to-use and the alternative action are both named.

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