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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds real context: output is parsed and sanitized, carries attribution and CC BY-SA licensing obligations, and accepts exactly one identifier form. It omits what redirects=false returns and how the section parameter narrows output, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 dense sentences: output shape first, input constraint and licensing second. Nothing is padded, though the licensing sentence is a policy note rather than operational guidance and could be trimmed for a leaner definition.

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-value detail is already covered, and the description still flags sanitization and licensing, which matter for downstream citation. The main gap is section semantics (whole page vs. partial) and redirect behavior, which are only in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the "provide exactly one of page, pageid, or oldid" constraint that the description merely restates. The description adds no format hints (e.g., whether section takes a number or anchor) beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

"Returns one parsed wiki page's title, section/category metadata, and sanitized text" gives a specific verb plus a clear resource and even enumerates the payload. The word "one" distinguishes it from the sibling listing/search tools (liquipedia_all_pages, liquipedia_search), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 implied: fetch a single page when you already have a title, page ID, or revision ID. The description never states when to prefer liquipedia_search or liquipedia_prefix_search to resolve an unknown title, nor does it address the required wiki slug (only the schema points to liquipedia_wikis).

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