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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral value by enumerating the read payload (blocks, metadata, version, revision count), which partially substitutes for the absent output schema, but says nothing about size limits, auth requirements beyond the token param, or whether blocks are paginated.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the payload summary comes first. The telegraphic style ("One wiki page whole") is slightly clipped but still readable and front-loaded.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description does the important work of describing return contents and the read-then-save version handoff. Remaining gaps (payload size, relation to `read_page`) are minor but real.

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 both `path` (home page, category hub, or category/slug) and `token` are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter format; its mention of "version" refers to a returned field consumed by `save_wiki_page`, not to an input here. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific resource (a single wiki page) and enumerates exactly what comes back: title, blocks, metadata, version and revision count. It is clear what the call yields, but it never distinguishes this tool from the sibling `read_page` or from `wiki_history`, which look like overlapping reads.

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 gives one concrete workflow instruction: pass the returned version as `base_version` when saving back, which implicitly points at `save_wiki_page`. There is no guidance on when to choose this over `read_page`/`wiki_history`, nor any exclusion or prerequisite.

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