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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, and the description adds performance context: it costs one call and a few kilobytes. It also discloses the response shape (tree with path, name, description, page count), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences deliver the core definition, the use-case guidance, and the cost profile without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important identifying information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, why it is useful, and how it relates to sibling tools. An agent can confidently decide to call it and understand the result shape.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics the description must compensate for. The description adds relevant context about what the returned data enables, but there is nothing to add about parameters themselves. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 the tool as returning the wiki tag hierarchy as a tree, with each node containing specific fields. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by positioning it as both the cheapest orientation method and the only way to find a valid tagPath before create_page. This is far beyond a vague or tautological statement.

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?

The description gives explicit use guidance: use it to orient before searching, use it to find a valid tagPath before create_page, and prefer it to listing pages to see what exists. This clearly tells an agent when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_pages or search_wiki.

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