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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains batching behavior, ambiguous slugs returning all matches, and the detailed return contents per kind. It even warns to read a placed-object page before claiming a measurement isn't tracked, adding useful behavioral nuance.

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 a clear summary and organized into a compact bullet list by kind. It is longer than many descriptions, but each section earns its place by documenting what the tool returns for each page type. Slightly dense, hence 4 rather than 5.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description thoroughly compensates by enumerating exactly what facts each kind returns. It also covers edge behavior for ambiguous slugs and kind omission. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool and interpret results 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It expands each kind enum option into a full list of returned facts, clarifies that slug values come from wiki_search, and explains the optional-kind fallback behavior. This goes far beyond the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 full facts for one OR MANY wiki pages in a single call.' It also distinguishes itself from related tools by pointing to wiki_calc for exact modified numbers and wiki_total_raw for from-scratch chains, making its role clear.

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 clear usage context: batch pages, use slugs from wiki_search, choose a kind, and omit kind only if unsure. It explicitly routes to wiki_calc and wiki_total_raw for alternative calculations, but it does not mention when to use sibling tools like wiki_aggregate or wiki_bom, so exclusions are incomplete.

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