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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes backlink mentions and the seat association, which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about payload size or permission requirements.

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 short sentences with the content enumeration front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'Returns: The page with its mentions.' partially repeats the opening list, which is minor waste but not enough to obscure the point.

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 two-parameter read tool with fully documented schema and a complete annotation set, the description covers what is returned and what the page object contains. No output schema exists, and the description adequately stands in for it by listing the returned fields.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the slug-or-id acceptance, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning such as whether the campaign slug can be omitted or how ambiguity between a slug and an id is resolved.

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 the specific resource (a wiki page) and enumerates what it contains (name, type, body, pictures, seat link, mentions), which clearly separates it from list_wiki_pages, get_wiki_page_history and update_wiki_page. The verb is only implied by the title, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as list_wiki_pages (to find a page) or get_wiki_page_history (for revisions). The agent must infer the routing from names alone, and nothing states whether a slug or id is preferred or what happens if the page does not exist.

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