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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the HTML return format with revision and license metadata, licensing/attribution obligations on reuse, that media licenses are separate, that HTML should be sanitized before rendering, and that gateway credentials govern authorization and charges.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by the licensing and gateway notes. Four sentences, all relevant; the licensing guidance is a bit dense but earns its place because there are no annotations.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return shape (HTML plus revision/license metadata), reuse obligations, and auth/billing routing. The only remaining gap is explicit routing guidance versus the sibling search and English-guide tools.

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% and the single 'title' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including preferring the key from destination search and encoding it as one URL path segment. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: retrieve a Chinese Wikivoyage travel guide as HTML with revision and license metadata. The language qualifier ('Chinese') implicitly separates it from the English variant and from the wikivoyage_get_zh_search sibling, 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 only implied: fetch a guide when you already have a page title. The schema notes preferring a key from destination search, but the description itself never says when to choose this over wikivoyage_get_zh_search or wikivoyage_get_guide_title, and gives no exclusions.

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