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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds 'no auth required' and the underlying API endpoint, which are useful facts, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or result size limits. With annotations carrying the main burden, the description adds modest value beyond 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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the language parameter and API context. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter tool with a full input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It includes the API source and auth requirement, which are helpful. It doesn't mention edge cases like articles with no media, but that is not essential given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a structured output schema.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description does mention 'Select the language edition with lang (default en)', but this largely duplicates the schema's own description of lang which already states the default. No additional parameter meaning is added beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is 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 verb ('List') and resource ('all images, audio, and video files referenced in a Wikipedia article'), and adds distinguishing details like source URLs and gallery/lead-image flags. This clearly separates it from siblings such as wikimedia-rest.pages.search or wikipedia.article.summary, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: when you need media files from a Wikipedia article. It provides helpful context like the default language and underlying API, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since the purpose is so narrow, the usage context is clear enough, though it stops short of explicitly naming sibling tools.

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