external_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully clarifies the scope of results (external references, including items without dedicated pages), but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset existing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core resource and its scope lead the sentence. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 read-only, annotated tool with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient, but it omits how query/limit/offset shape the results and how it relates to the sibling link/asset tools. These gaps are minor given the annotation coverage but not negligible.

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% for all three parameters (limit, query, offset). The description never mentions filtering or paging semantics, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap; only the self-explanatory parameter names carry any meaning.

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 (Find) and resource (external references linked by the wiki) and enumerates the included categories (tools without pages, downloads, videos, research). It is fairly distinguishable from siblings like wiki_links and wiki_assets, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as wiki_links, wiki_assets, or search_wiki, which an agent would plausibly confuse this with. The reader must infer the selection condition from the description alone.

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