external_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a safe read, and the scope ('off-wiki') is clarified, but nothing is said about error behavior for a missing article, pagination beyond the limit param, or return shape. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 verb+resource, then the trio framing, then use cases — a logical ordering. Slightly long with two enumerations of examples, but each sentence earns its place by adding differentiating context.

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 still covers purpose, sibling positioning, and use cases, and the schema fully documents all three parameters. The only real gap is behavior on failure (nonexistent/invalid title) and any rate-limit or pagination nuance.

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%, so `lang`, `limit`, and `title` are already fully documented in the schema (including defaults and max). The description adds no format, syntax, or edge-case guidance for those parameters, 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('external/off-wiki links from a Wikipedia article') and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings `links` (internal outgoing) and `backlinks` (internal incoming). An agent can immediately tell which of the trio to call.

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 the scenario set (source verification, citation audits, primary-source discovery, fact-checking) and frames the tool as the 'outbound complement' within a trio, giving the agent a clear selection rationale versus `links` and `backlinks`. No competing tool overlaps are left ambiguous.

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