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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations it discloses that the question leaves the system to a third party, that personal details are refused, that answers are cached in the workspace only a few hours, that `state: pending` means polling with retry_after_sec, and that returned text is data rather than instructions. These are exactly the operational and safety facts an agent needs and that annotations cannot carry.

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 purpose and example are front-loaded in the first clause, and the remaining sentences carry distinct facts (privacy rules, caching, pending polling, fallback, trust boundary). It is dense and a single unbroken block, which slightly hurts scannability, but no sentence is filler.

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 takes on the burden of explaining returns and does so: answer text, cited files with links verified against the default branch, async `pending` state with retry guidance, and a `fallback` payload. Nothing material for a correct call 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 all three parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the schema constraints ('public repo', 'no personal details'). It adds some framing by tying the question to code-only topics and by naming list_workspaces indirectly through the workspace default, but no new syntax or format detail.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Ask DeepWiki a question about a public GitHub repo's code') and immediately describes the return payload: a generated answer plus cited files linked and verified against the default branch. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like read_readme, get_repository_knowledge and contribution_profile.

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 explicitly scopes the question content ('ask about the code, not about who wrote it') and routes authorship questions to contribution_profile, while pointing to `fallback` (README plus GitHub facts) when DeepWiki cannot answer. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all stated.

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