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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the exact return shape { count, next_skip, items } and the pagination contract of feeding next_skip back as skip, which an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the resource, then the return/pagination contract, then the filtering modes, then the endpoint. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description supplies the return envelope and the pagination cursor rule, plus the single-record read path and both filtering modes. For a six-parameter, all-optional list tool with rich annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates them (id for one record, exact-match filters, MongoDB-style query). It adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 names the specific resource (Plutio wiki / knowledge base pages) and pairs it with the underlying endpoint GET /wiki-entities, which makes the tool's scope unambiguous against siblings like plutio_list_projects or plutio_list_notes. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb ('list'), but the title plus the endpoint resolve that, and no sibling covers the same resource.

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?

It clearly separates the two usage modes: pass id to read one record versus listing with exact-match filters or a MongoDB-style query. There are no exclusions or 'when not to use' statements, but since no sibling tool overlaps with wiki pages, the main selection ambiguity is internal (single vs list), which is addressed.

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