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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: endpoints are returned 'in reference order' and each includes three specific pieces of information. This helps the agent set expectations about the response structure.

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 sentences with no filler: the first delivers the core purpose and output shape, and the second explains the optional filter with an exhaustive tag list. Everything present earns its place.

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 list-all operation with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers scope, ordering, output contents, and filtering, leaving no material gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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% for the tag parameter, so the schema already provides a baseline. The description adds significant value by enumerating the exact allowed tag values and clarifying that the tag is a filter, which is more actionable than the schema alone.

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 resource ('every endpoint in the Wikimedia Enterprise OpenAPI definition') and the exact form of the output ('technical title, plain-language line, link into the reference'). The strength of 'every' distinguishes it from siblings like get_endpoint and search, which are clearly about individual or filtered retrieval.

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 clearly explains the filtering capability and lists all valid tags, giving an agent concrete guidance for using the tool. However, it never mentions when to prefer this tool over siblings such as get_endpoint or search, leaving the alternative-selection logic implicit rather than explicit.

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