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

Annotations only say readOnly/idempotent/closed-world; the description adds the real behavioral traits: page-aligned truncation, the truncated/omittedPages/nextSkip return fields, and how to resume via skip=nextSkip. It also discloses what sizeOnly returns (character count, token estimate, per-branch breakdown, largest pages).

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 core purpose, then procedures in the order an agent needs them. It is dense and somewhat packed into one paragraph (workflow, params, truncation, alternative), but nearly every sentence carries actionable 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it names the sizeOnly payload fields and the truncation/resume fields. Combined with the workflow and the sibling pointer, an agent has everything needed 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters; the description still adds value by framing sizeOnly as a preflight step and tying skip to nextSkip and tagPath to branch scoping. It largely restates defaults/maxima that the schema already carries, so it is above baseline but not fully additive.

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 — the entire AcuiQ wiki returned as a single text document — and names its purpose (bulk ingestion), which immediately separates it from per-page siblings like get_page/get_pages.

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 an explicit two-step procedure (preflight with sizeOnly=true, then pull) and names the alternative: 'For a handful of pages get_pages is cheaper.' Both the when-to-use and when-not-to-use cases are stated.

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