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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by specifying only 'public accepted' edits are listed, but it omits ordering, default page size, and any rate or auth constraints.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first. 'With verified pagination and sort filters' is slightly promotional filler but does not obscure meaning, keeping it efficient.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only safety contract. Still, for a 5-parameter list tool the missing parameter semantics (sort vs sort_by, defaults, slug source) leave an agent under-informed.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It vaguely alludes to 'pagination and sort filters' (mapping loosely to page/limit and sort/sort_by) but never names the parameters, their formats, or how sort differs from sort_by, and says nothing about the required slug.

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+resource: 'List public accepted edit history' for a Sportskeeda Wiki article. This clearly separates it from siblings like sportskeeda_wiki_contributors or sportskeeda_wiki_summary. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for a discovered Sportskeeda Wiki article' implies the slug must come from a prior discovery step, giving implied usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusion criteria versus the other sportskeeda_wiki_* tools.

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