Wikipedia pageviews for a place or entity

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds valuable context beyond these: it resolves names via Wikidata to fetch all language editions at once, and specifies the exact data returned (views per month, trend, strongest months). It also notes the API is free and keyless, which is useful for cost expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and functionality; the second provides usage guidance. Every clause adds information, and the structure is easy to scan for an agent.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema. The description covers what the tool returns (views, trend, strongest months), how it resolves entities, and its key use cases. It doesn't detail error handling or rate limits, but these are not critical for correct invocation given the annotations and schema.

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% – every parameter has a descriptive comment. The description adds a little extra (e.g., that 'months' affects the year-over-year comparison and that 'wikidataId' guarantees entity correctness), but it largely restates schema content. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('Monthly Wikipedia pageviews per language for a monument, town, museum or brand'). It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling tools (none of which handle Wikipedia pageviews) by detailing its output: views per month, year-over-year trend, and strongest calendar months. The scope is unambiguous.

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 second sentence explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: as a demand and seasonality signal independent of first-party traffic, to decide which language deserves content first, and to select articles for schema citation. It does not name specific alternative tools, but the usage context is precise and actionable.

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