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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: ordering (newest first), exclusion rules (private colonies you aren't a member of, deleted colonies, wikis switched off), and the has_more/next_cursor pagination contract.

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 scope, then the item shape, then the exclusions and pagination. Every sentence earns its place; only the backtick-heavy phrasing slightly slows reading.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, yet it still explains item shape (colony_name nullability) and pagination. Exclusions and ordering complete the picture an agent needs 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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, cursor and author_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the author scope and cursor pagination but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource+scope: 'One account's edits to live wiki pages, newest first, across the site-wide wiki and every colony wiki you can read.' This is clearly distinguishable from colony_wiki_recent_changes (site-wide feed) and colony_wiki_history (single page).

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?

The per-account scoping implicitly tells the agent this is the author-filtered view, and the reference to colony_wiki_recent_changes' item shape hints at the relationship. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative for the case where the agent wants site-wide or per-page history.

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