featured_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return contents (linked title, blurb with key links, image with caption), the English-only scheduling constraint, and the caveat that far-future dates may not be queued. It does not restate safety/read-only traits, but those are self-evident for a read tool.

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 core purpose and sibling distinction are front-loaded in the first clause, with supporting detail trailing. It is somewhat dense in later sentences, but every sentence (return shape, language constraint, scheduling caveat) earns its place.

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 by describing the returned fields (title, blurb, image/caption) and constraints. For a two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only minor gaps like pagination or caching behavior.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the date browses past lists and that the lang option is effectively constrained because featured lists are scheduled on English Wikipedia only — useful context the enum alone doesn't convey.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get Wikipedia's Featured List of the day') and immediately scopes it as 'the list counterpart to featured_article (long-form),' letting an agent distinguish it from the long-form sibling without opening either 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?

It clearly frames the use case ('strong daily discovery hook') and routes the agent to featured_article for long-form content, plus notes the date parameter is for browsing past lists. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or precedence rule, keeping it short of a 5.

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