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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context: the values are *live* (may change), they bound page-size ranges, and results carry CC BY-SA attribution requirements. The attribution note is slightly ambiguous since an enum listing does not obviously contain wiki text, but the intent (licensing obligation) is disclosed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the enumeration and followed by the usage directive; little waste. The trailing attribution clause sits oddly on a metadata tool and dilutes focus slightly, but it is short.

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 the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description covers what the enums are, why to fetch them first, and the licensing constraint — adequate for a one-parameter reference tool, with only minor ambiguity remaining around the attribution note.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already says it is a wiki slug from liquipedia_wikis. The description's 'a selected wiki's' adds no syntax, format, or failure-mode detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('Lists') and a well-defined resource: live namespace IDs plus the accepted filter options and page-size ranges for a given wiki. The enumeration of filter families (search, link, backlink, category-member, page-index, recent-change) makes clear this is the metadata/reference tool rather than one of the query siblings, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it before constructing namespace or ranking filters', which tells the agent this is a prerequisite call that precedes search/link/recent-change queries. It does not state when to skip it or name a specific alternative, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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