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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses what each page returns (summary, sources, markdown-twin URL) and that pages carry provenance and recency metadata ("what it rests on and when those claims were last checked"). It stops short of stating size/pagination limits, so it is not a full 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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then invocation modes, then the search_wiki pointer. Each sentence carries information, though the middle "context the protocol tools cannot supply" aside is slightly editorial and the whole runs dense for a one-parameter tool.

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 compensates by describing return contents and provenance fields. For a single optional-parameter read tool with covering annotations, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further than the schema by explaining the omit-to-list-all behavior and giving a concrete path format example. That meaningfully enriches the single parameter beyond its schema doc.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource (read/get a wiki page) and immediately states the dual behavior: read one page or list the whole wiki. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning the content as "the context the protocol tools cannot supply" and routing topic lookups to search_wiki.

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?

It gives explicit call modes ("call with no arguments to list every page" vs "pass 'path' to get one page") and names the alternative tool for the adjacent task ("To find the page for a topic, call search_wiki first"). An agent can pick the right invocation without inference.

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