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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, yet the description still adds real behavior: default and maximum values, newest-first ordering, identical row shape to list_pages, and the meaning of `truncated: true` plus the remedial action. It stops short of describing auth or rate-limit behavior, but for a read-only listing tool that is minor.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by usage framing and defaults. No filler; the truncation guidance is placed last where an agent needs it after the core selection decision.

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 return-shape duty and does so reasonably via 'Same rows as list_pages' and the `truncated` flag explanation. The full field list must still be inferred from the sibling tool, which is a small residual gap.

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 defaults and maxima restated in the description are largely redundant. The added value is linking `limit` to the downstream `truncated` signal and telling the agent how to react to it — semantics the schema alone does not convey.

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 and scope: pages edited within the last N days, ordered newest first. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling list_pages ('Same rows as list_pages'), so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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 a concrete use case ('what to poll when you are watching the wiki rather than reading it') and a fallback path when truncated ('raise it, or page through list_pages'). It does not state an explicit exclusion, but the read-vs-poll framing effectively implies the boundary against list_pages.

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