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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: default ordering (newest first), pagination defaults and the 100 cap, and the result envelope keys (totalPages, hasMore, nextPage) that no output schema documents.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary distinguishing mechanism before any parameter detail. No filler, no restating the title or tool name, and every clause carries operational information.

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-required-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, alternatives, ordering, pagination limits, and the return envelope. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly, and safety is already handled by annotations.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning on top: tagPath matches the branch plus everything beneath it and can be omitted entirely, and sort=title is framed as an A-Z pass over the same data, clarifying the enum's practical effect.

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 ('Browse the Radix Wiki') and pins the mechanism precisely: 'by tag path rather than by keyword', with scope ('every page under a branch'). This distinguishes it cleanly from search_wiki and get_pages without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternative implicitly via 'rather than by keyword' (search_wiki) and gives selection conditions: use tagPath to scope to a branch and descendants, omit it to walk the whole wiki, use sort=title for an A-Z pass. No explicit when-not or hard exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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