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

Annotations only declare read-only, idempotent, open-world safety. The description goes well beyond: rejected title forms (URLs, #variants, |, Category:), no-cursor truncation semantics, omitted-vs-zero-filled fields, exclusion of prose/images, index lag against edits, and concrete rate limits with Retry-After handling for 429s. This is substantially more than the annotations supply.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then bulleted constraints each carrying a distinct operational fact. Dense but zero filler; no sentence restates the title or schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return shapes need not be described, and everything else an agent needs for correct invocation is present: dataset choice, title format, truncation strategy, missing-field behavior, auth, and throttling. Nothing material is left to guess.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot: 'page' must be a literal title with spaces that the server URL-encodes, 'kind' selects a dataset rather than filtering (quest includes miniquests, subquests, sagas), and 'limit' expands a prefix rather than paginating, repeating earlier variants. These are non-obvious semantics that prevent real invocation mistakes.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read RS3 monster combat stats or quest metadata') and immediately differentiates itself from three named siblings. An agent can tell this apart from search_wiki, get_wiki_page_content and get_item_details without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use search_wiki for titles, get_wiki_page_content for reviewed text/links, get_item_details for GE records. It also states the failure condition ('a title in the wrong dataset errors') and what to do when truncated, which is exactly the when/when-not guidance that matters here.

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