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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that the history is 'recent' (a scoping constraint) and specifies the data fields returned, which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences front-load the tool's purpose and data content, followed by practical use cases. Every word contributes, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and some output details, and annotations cover safety. However, the lack of parameter descriptions for lang/project and any mention of limits (e.g., number of revisions returned) leaves the tool slightly incomplete, though the output schema may mitigate the return-value gap.

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 only implicitly covers the 'title' parameter via 'Wikipedia article.' It does not explain 'lang' or 'project' parameters, leaving the agent without necessary context for those inputs.

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 clearly states 'Recent edit history for a Wikipedia article' and lists specific data elements (editor usernames, timestamps, revision sizes, edit comments), which precisely defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like page_summary or page_metadata.

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: 'Use to check when an article was last updated, spot recent disputes, or assess reliability before quoting.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so it lacks exclusions.

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