most_linked

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key traits: read-only, GET-only via the action API, and that project-namespace policy pages are filtered out so only article-namespace results return. It stops short of describing pagination/return shape or rate limits, and there is no output schema to cover that gap.

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 definition and ranking semantics are front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good structure. The later clauses ('a measure of how central a topic is...' and 'shows what's most central to what exists') partly restate the same point, so it is slightly longer than necessary.

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?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers purpose, scope (article namespace only), ranking semantics, and sibling disambiguation. Only minor items are unaddressed, such as whether the ranking is paginated or how many results the report yields.

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 lang (enum + default) and limit (default/max) fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual meaning (the ranking is by incoming links within a language Wikipedia) but no parameter-specific format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (list Wikipedia articles with the most incoming links) and immediately scopes it as an in-link popularity ranking rather than a read-count ranking. It explicitly names and distinguishes sibling tools (top_reads, wanted_articles, backlinks), so an agent can separate it from them without opening schemas.

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 states exactly what question this tool answers ('what's most central to what exists') and contrasts it against the three nearest alternatives with their own one-line purposes (what people read, what's missing, per-article inbound links). That is an explicit alternative-routing map rather than implied usage.

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