article_protection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well: it declares read-only/GET-only, notes that redirects are followed, that missing/salted titles are reported, and that cascade protections name their source page. It stops short of permission or rate-limit context, and 'no new dependencies' is an implementation aside of little value to the agent.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph, but the key question is front-loaded and each clause adds distinct information (levels, expiry, cascade, missing titles). It is somewhat long and the closing 'no new dependencies' clause is filler, keeping it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description must stand alone, and it does: it describes the return content (restricted actions, levels, expiry), edge cases (missing/salted titles, cascade protections), and safety (read-only). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters (lang enum, article title) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds behavioral nuance around the article parameter (missing titles, redirect following) but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

The opening question ('Is this Wikipedia article locked, who can still touch it, and for how long') immediately names the resource and the exact scope (protection status). It further enumerates what's reported (restricted actions, protection levels, expiry) so an agent knows precisely what it yields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by framing the other trust signals (article_quality, article_flags, citation_needed, talk) as separate tools.

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?

It positions itself as the 'lockdown companion to the other trust signals' and names the four related tools by function, which gives clear contextual routing. However, it never states a crisp when-to-use/when-not rule or an explicit alternative for protection lookups, leaving that to inference.

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