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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds behavioral detail by stating returns up to ~12 related pages with summaries, which goes beyond the structured annotations and is consistent with them.

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: the first front-loads the purpose with a clear metaphor ('see also'), and the second adds use cases. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of schema or annotations.

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 the tool's simplicity, the output schema likely covers the return structure, and annotations cover safety. The description covers purpose, usage, and return details, but lacks parameter semantics and edge-case behavior, which prevents a perfect score.

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 0%, and the description does not explain lang or project parameters. It only implies title via 'any topic' and the example 'Isaac Newton', leaving optional parameters undefined.

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?

Description explicitly states it returns Wikipedia's related-articles graph with summaries for any topic. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling page_* tools like page_summary or page_metadata by naming the specific function ('related articles') and resource (Wikipedia).

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'what should I read next', topic exploration, or finding adjacent concepts. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to decide when to use it.

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