wiki_page_get_text_by_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces this by stating 'Read-only' and adds that it returns only content, providing context beyond the annotations (e.g., what data is returned). No contradictions.

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 sentence conveys the essential purpose and constraint. There is no extraneous information, and every word adds value. The description is optimally concise 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single required param, read-only, no side effects), the description together with the schema and output schema provides complete information. The description clearly states what is returned, and the schema covers the input. No gaps remain.

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?

The schema already describes the 'url' parameter with a full description and example. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond repeating 'по полной ссылке', so it does not elevate understanding beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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 clearly states that the tool returns only the content of a wiki page given a full URL. It uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('content'), and distinguishes from siblings like wiki_page_get_by_url (which presumably returns full page data). The purpose is unmistakable.

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 description indicates that the tool is read-only and returns only content, implying it should be used when only the page text is needed rather than the full page object. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like wiki_page_get or wiki_page_get_by_url, leaving some inference required.

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