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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that output is converted from rendered HTML into clean, tag-free JSON and that the MCP channel is free, but it omits auth, rate limits, error handling, and whether the operation is purely read-only. These gaps are moderate for a simple lookup tool.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The cost-channel note is relevant and does not bloat the text. Every sentence contributes useful context.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description explains the return format (clean, tag-free JSON) and the scope (lead section). It does not describe the JSON fields or error behavior, but it is nearly complete for correct invocation.

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% for the single 'title' parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description adds no syntax, format, or interpretation details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (Wikipedia article lead section) and the output transformation (rendered HTML into clean, tag-free JSON). It does not name a verb like 'fetch' or 'get', but the name and title make the action obvious. Sibling tools are unrelated, so no differentiation is needed.

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 gives cost-channel context: free via MCP and pay-per-call via a URL for production/agentic use. It does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. Usage is implied by the resource type, but explicit when/when-not guidance is absent.

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