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 value beyond them by naming the returned fields and disclosing that responses carry CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution metadata. It does not mention whether the directory is cached or how large it is, a minor residual gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the action the agent should take with the result. Nothing is redundant with the name or schema.

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?

A zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema needs little prose, and the description covers content, downstream use, and licensing. It stops short of noting anything about list size, ordering, or freshness, which would fully close the loop.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing in the schema for the description to clarify and it does not attempt to invent parameter meaning.

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 and resource ('Lists Liquipedia's current MediaWiki wiki directory') and enumerates the payload fields (prefixes, canonical slugs, source URLs). An agent can tell this apart from liquipedia_search / liquipedia_page, which consume the slugs this tool produces.

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?

'Use a returned slug for search or page tools' gives explicit downstream usage and implicitly frames this as the entry point of a workflow. No explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion is stated, which keeps it from a 5.

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