article_pulse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses 'follows redirects,' 'read-only via the action API — GET only, no new dependencies,' and enumerates the returned fields. It does not mention rate limits, pagination, or error behavior for missing articles, so it stops just short of full disclosure.

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 ('how alive is this page right now') and structured as a single flowing sentence. It is dense and slightly long, but nearly every clause earns its place by naming a returned metric or a sibling distinction.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates fully: it lists every returned field, the activity verdict scale, the read-only nature, and redirect behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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% across both parameters, so the schema already documents lang and article. The description adds only marginal semantics ('Follows redirects' implies article accepts redirect titles), so the baseline of 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?

States a specific, vivid verb+resource ('take the pulse of' a Wikipedia article) and enumerates exactly what the health check returns: creation date/creator, page length, watcher count, latest edit, 30-day edit velocity, and an activity verdict. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools (article_quality, contributors, revisions, pageviews) by role, so an agent can tell them apart without opening a schema.

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?

Names four alternatives and assigns each a distinct role ('the grade earned' -> article_quality, 'who edits it' -> contributors, 'raw edit log' -> revisions, 'traffic' -> pageviews), positioning itself as the 'liveliness companion.' This gives the agent clear routing logic for when to pick this tool versus the adjacent ones.

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