read_wiki_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral detail on top: redirects are followed, text is labelled by game version (Classic/Retail/Forever), long pages expose their section names, and max_chars truncates the answer. It does not describe error behavior for a missing title, which keeps it short of a 5.

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-loads the core action and the routing rule, then the content categories, then per-argument notes — a sensible order with little waste. The prose paragraph runs slightly long and could be bulleted, but no sentence is filler.

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 3-parameter read tool with an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: when to use it, when to route to search_wiki, how sections and truncation work, and how version-specific content is marked. Return value structure is covered by the output schema, so its absence from the description is appropriate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: title gets two concrete example titles, section gets example values plus the useful hint that long pages list their section names, and max_chars states its default of 6000 and its meaning as the longest returned answer.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Read a Warcraft Wiki page as plain text") plus the shape of the output ("key facts listed first"). It also names the sibling it is not — search_wiki — so the agent can distinguish it from the other wiki tool without opening either 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?

Gives explicit content categories the tool is for (NPC locations, vendor stock and prices, quest rewards, items, zones) and an explicit fallback condition: "If you do not know the exact title, call search_wiki first." It also tells the agent to prefer Forever-labelled info, which is a usage rule rather than a capability.

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