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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that output is Markdown and gives path format, but it does not mention error behavior, prerequisites, or any other limitations. This is adequate for a simple fetch operation but lacks depth.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every word contributes value. No redundancy or clutter.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return format (Markdown) and provides usage examples. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could note potential error cases.

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 'path' parameter with an example, but the description adds extra context by showing additional valid forms like '/wiki' and '/wiki/recipes'. This enriches the meaning beyond the schema's baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a single Eco wiki page as Markdown.' It also provides concrete path examples. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like wiki_get, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this over alternatives.

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 implies usage for fetching single wiki pages via canonical paths, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool compared to siblings such as wiki_get or search. The examples provide context but no direct alternative guidance.

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