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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is already clear. The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations: no-argument calls return a list with section and summary, while path calls return summary, sources, and a markdown-twin URL. It also discloses that pages include provenance information about when claims were last checked.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then moves into usage and return behavior. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, context, invocation modes, and provenance. The provenance sentence is slightly extra but useful for setting expectations about content freshness.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers both call modes, what each returns, provides a path example, and explains the kind of content a caller should expect. An agent can confidently decide whether and how to invoke this tool.

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 describes 'path' with an example and says omitting it lists every page, so schema coverage is complete. The description adds value by explaining what the caller gets when passing 'path' (summary, sources, markdown-twin URL) and gives another concrete path example ('nomenclature/point-codes'), reinforcing the behavior of the parameter.

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.' It also positions the tool as a knowledge base distinct from the protocol tools by calling it 'the context the protocol tools cannot supply,' which helps differentiate it from sibling getters like get_point and get_meridians.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: for reference notes on nomenclature, point safety, and prescription theory. It also gives clear invocation guidance: call with no arguments to list pages, or pass 'path' to fetch a single page. It does not name a specific sibling as an alternative, but the contrast with 'protocol tools' provides enough context.

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