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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the exact metadata contents returned (categories, links, URLs, page_id, namespace) and stating the intended applications, which goes beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 and every word earns its place. The first sentence immediately states what the tool returns, and the second sentence provides concrete use cases. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, the return structure is already defined. The description covers the core purpose, the specific metadata fields, and practical use cases. This is fully complete for guiding an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (title, lang, project). While 'title' is self-evident from the examples, 'lang' and 'project' remain ambiguous. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, making it unclear what values these parameters accept or how they affect the output.

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 opens with a clear statement of what the tool returns: 'Wikipedia article metadata' and lists the specific fields (categories, inter-language links, content_urls, page_id, ns). It further clarifies the purpose with three concrete use cases: 'get canonical IDs, discover language versions, or check which categories an article belongs to.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like page_summary or page_html.

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 provides explicit use cases with 'Use to...' which signals when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not explicitly name alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the specificity of the listed use cases gives clear context.

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