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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds meaningful filtering context ('public accepted' contributors, 'verified pagination'), which clarifies the result set. It stops short of describing pagination limits or auth/rate behavior.

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 no filler. The scope ('public accepted', 'verified pagination and sort filters') is packed in efficiently, though the 'verified' qualifier is vague.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover safety. However, with 5 undocumented parameters at 0% coverage and no usage routing, the definition leaves notable gaps an agent would need to resolve before calling.

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% for 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It gestures at pagination (page, limit) and sort filters (sort, sort_by) but gives no formats, allowed values, or defaults, and never explains the required slug. It adds only minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (public accepted contributors for a Sportskeeda Wiki article), which is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like sportskeeda_wiki_article or sportskeeda_wiki_activity. The 'discovered ... article' phrasing hints that a prior lookup is needed, but it does not name which sibling provides the slug.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'for a discovered Sportskeeda Wiki article' suggests the slug must come from an article-discovery call, but no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative tools are named. An agent must infer the workflow.

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