contributors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so thoroughly: it reveals that the tool follows redirects, uses a read-only action API revisions query, is GET only, has no new dependencies, samples up to 500 revisions, and outputs ranked named editors, edit shares, user-page links, and anonymous IP share. This is exceptionally complete.

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?

The description is well organized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, though the provenance analogy is slightly expansive; overall there is no significant filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description spells out the return contents and key caveats: ranked contributors, edit shares, user-page links, anonymous IP share, sample size, redirect behavior, and read-only nature. With annotations absent, this fully equips an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds useful global context such as redirect-following and the 500-revision window, but it does not add per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 description opens with a precise job description ('Who writes and maintains a Wikipedia article'), then specifies the mechanism: tallies recent edit history (up to 500 revisions) into a ranked contributor table. It names the output components and contrasts with sibling tools article_quality and revisions, so an agent can clearly distinguish it from related 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?

The description positions the tool as a provenance companion to article_quality and revisions, and gives concrete use cases: crediting top editors, checking for conflicts of interest, and understanding whether a page is veteran-tended or IP-driven. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the contextual guidance is strong.

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