links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful trait not in the schema: results are filtered to main namespace so talk/user pages don't pollute output, and that this is the raw article network. However it says nothing about ordering, deduplication, or truncation behavior beyond the schema's limit.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The middle illustrative sentence is a bit long but earns its place by grounding the use case; no 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?

A simple read-only list tool with 3 fully documented params and no output schema; the description covers scope, the outgoing-vs-incoming distinction, and namespace filtering. Missing only minor operational detail like ordering.

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 documented in the schema. The description repeats the 'Tyrannosaurus' title example but adds no syntax, format, or constraint meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 precise verb and resource ('List outgoing Wikipedia links from an article'), and the word 'outgoing' implicitly separates it from the sibling 'backlinks'. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the 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?

Gives a clear use case with a concrete example ('given Tyrannosaurus, see which genera, paleontologists, formations...'), which orients the agent on when this is the right tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions, so it does not reach a 5.

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