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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so "Read-only" is largely redundant with structured data. The description does add useful behavioral context by disclosing the per-locale granularity of results, but omits pagination, result-size limits, and ordering for a potentially multi-locale list.

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 tight sentences: resource and returned fields first, then the optional-parameter rule. No filler, nothing wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully names the returned fields, so an agent knows the response shape. The only gap is list behavior at scale (pagination/ordering), which matters when locale is omitted and all locales are returned.

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%, so the description must carry the locale parameter's meaning — and it does, explaining that omitting locale returns every published locale. It does not restate the enum values, but the schema already enumerates them, making that unnecessary.

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 ("List Waply public guides") and enumerates the fields returned (title, description, last update, URL), which goes beyond a bare restatement. It distinguishes itself implicitly from siblings like get_installation_guide and search_documentation, though it never names an alternative 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?

"Omit locale to get every published locale" is a genuine usage rule for optionality. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over search_documentation or get_installation_guide, so routing among siblings is left to inference.

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