ygo_wiki

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a two-step navigation pattern — card lookups report 'which tabs exist', which the agent then feeds into topic=tab — and that resolving works across three identifier types. It says nothing about that this is a remote network fetch against a wiki, what happens on a miss, or that results are cached (the 7-day cache is only revealed in the schema's refresh param).

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, front-loaded with the tool's identity, then a compact parenthetical inventory of topics. The nested parenthetical lists are dense but scannable and every clause carries information. Minor cost: the tab enumeration duplicates the enum values, which is the only real padding.

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 7-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what topics exist and what card data comes back, which is substantial. It is silent on the return format (markdown vs structured), how `section`, `imagesOnly` and `refresh` modify results, and what the `status` topic returns — a gap for a tool with no output schema to lean on.

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 100%, so every one of the 7 parameters is already documented, including enum semantics for topic and tab. The description reinforces the identifier types accepted by `input` and lists the tab names, but that largely restates the enums. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Yugipedia lookup') and then enumerates the four data domains it covers: cards (with concrete fields like passcode, Card Database ID, archetype), tabs, pages and search. This implicitly separates it from structured-data siblings such as ygo_get_card and ygo_search_cards, since it is clearly the raw-wiki surface. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 by the enumerated content types — an agent can infer this is for ruling/trivia/gallery/set-page text rather than structured card stats. 'Resolves by name, passcode or database ID' gives a hint about input flexibility. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing against ygo_get_card or ygo_search_cards, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face here.

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