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

The description adds substantial context beyond the read-only annotations: it defines each returned field, explains null semantics, clarifies the relationship between version and inForce, and discloses that the journal is immutable and ordered newest-first.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence conveys useful return-value semantics. It is somewhat dense and could be made more skimmable, but there is no evident waste.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and only one documented parameter, the description does a thorough job of explaining the returned object and its nuances. An agent has enough information to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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% with one parameter whose description already states 'Page id (as returned by search_wiki).' The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies a specific resource (wiki page approval) and explains exactly what information it returns: version, approved status, in-force edition, approvers, permissions, and journal. It also distinguishes itself from get_wiki_page by explaining when the text read there is not the approved text.

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 through the field explanations and the contrast with get_wiki_page, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this tool versus siblings like approve_wiki_page, ask_wiki_page_approval, or withdraw_wiki_page_approval.

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