article_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the search is bidirectional and bounded, explains exactly what each hop count does computationally, notes redirects are followed, and declares the operation is read-only GET with no new dependencies. It stops short of disclosing what happens when no path exists, runtime cost of the 3-hop sample, or any rate/timeout limits.

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 and an illustrative example, then a compact algorithm sketch and a routing pointer to `links`/`backlinks`. Dense but nearly every clause earns its place; the trailing 'no new dependencies' is implementation trivia rather than agent-relevant information.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the example chain (Banana → Africa → Anatolia → Trojan War) conveys the return shape — an ordered list of titles — so the description compensates adequately. Missing detail on the no-path case and result ordering/ambiguity handling keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by giving operational meaning to `max_hops` (1 hop = direct link check, 2 hops = intersection of outgoing and incoming links, 3 hops = bounded sample of the start's links) and supplies a worked example chain. This tells the agent the semantic cost difference between hop values, not just their types.

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 (

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 frames the tool as the shortest-path discovery companion to `links` and `backlinks`, which implicitly routes the agent: use `links`/`backlinks` for adjacency, use this when you need a connection between two specific titles. However, it never states an explicit when-not-to-use condition or the cost/limit tradeoff that should steer an agent away from max_hops=3 for casual lookups. Clear context, but no exclusions.

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