article_flags

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does so substantially: 'Read-only — GET only, no new dependencies' discloses the safety profile, and it enumerates the return fields (banner name, tag date, location, plain-language meaning). It stops short of covering error/pagination behavior or the meaning of the limit default, so not a full 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-loaded with the core purpose, then routing, then the read-only note. Slightly long due to the template enumeration, but each sentence earns its place by adding distinguishing content.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description usefully lists the shape of each returned flag, which compensates. Combined with the read-only disclosure, an agent has enough to call it correctly; remaining gaps are minor (limit semantics, error cases).

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% and documents lang, limit, and article. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Show the maintenance banners editors placed on an article') and concretely enumerates what those banners are ({{POV}}, {{Original research}}, etc.), leaving no ambiguity about what is returned. It clearly differentiates itself from article_quality (grade), citation_needed (unsourced claims), and talk (discussion).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'check it to see exactly what editors think is wrong with an article before relying on it,' and names the three sibling tools with their distinct purposes. This is an explicit when-to-use plus alternatives statement.

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