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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the no-arguments list mode, the path mode with summary/sources/markdown-twin URL, and the fact that each page states its supporting basis and when claims were last checked. No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence contributes: what the tool does, what content it provides, how to invoke both modes, and what kind of provenance each page carries. There is no filler or repetition of the annotations.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers both call modes, the shape of what each mode returns, and the trustworthiness of the content. An agent can select and invoke this tool correctly without needing additional context.

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?

The schema already documents the single optional 'path' parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving a concrete path example ('nomenclature/point-codes'), clarifying the section/slug format, and explicitly stating that omitting the parameter lists every page.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Read one AcuiQ wiki page, or list what the wiki holds') and clearly distinguishes it from the protocol tools by positioning the wiki as the source for nomenclature, safety, and theory context. This is more specific than the annotation title alone and leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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 description gives explicit invocation guidance: call with no arguments to list all pages, or pass a 'path' to retrieve one page's content. It also explains when the tool is appropriate by stating it supplies context that protocol tools cannot, which effectively routes an agent away from sibling tools like get_point or get_meridians when reference notes are needed.

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