article_quality

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses read-only via pageassessments API, GET only, no new dependencies, and outlines the output structure (overall class plus per-project breakdown with legend). Lacks error handling details, but coverage is good.

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?

Concise yet information-dense: purpose, usage guidance, output description, and technical details are each conveyed in a single sentence. Front-loaded with the core purpose and trust signal, no wasted words.

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?

Complete for a simple tool with two well-documented params. Explains output (overall class + breakdown + legend), read-only nature, and language caveats. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without an output schema.

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% with descriptions for both lang and title. Description adds the language caveat (de reports no data) and explains the significance of grades, which helps agents interpret results. This exceeds the baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states it retrieves Wikipedia quality assessments (WikiProject grades and importance) for an article. Distinguishes itself from content-focused siblings (e.g., summary, article_extract) by emphasizing it is a trust signal about article quality.

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 recommends using it before relying on an article and notes language-specific data availability (en works, de may report no data). Does not name specific alternative tools, but the sibling list makes it obvious when to use this tool over content retrieval tools.

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