top_reads

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 a good job: it discloses the data source (Wikimedia top-pageviews, all-access, daily), the default date rationale (today's data not finalized), and the namespace filtering that removes non-article noise. It does not cover rate limits, auth, or response shape, but the substantive behavior is well documented.

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 purpose, followed by source, default-date caveat, filtering note, and sibling comparison. Slightly long, but each sentence earns its place; only the endpoint/routing sentence could be trimmed.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with three well-documented params, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly: it covers source, date semantics, filtering, and sibling differentiation. Minor gaps (return shape, result ordering) remain, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 schema already documents date, lang, and limit. The description reinforces the date default (yesterday UTC) and explains the namespace filtering behavior, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb+resource: 'Get the most-read articles on Wikipedia for a given date,' and then names the underlying endpoint. It clearly distinguishes top_reads (aggregate popularity) from the sibling pageviews (per-article trending), so an agent can route between them 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 explicitly frames when to use this tool versus pageviews ('what is everyone reading right now' vs 'how is this specific article trending'), giving the agent a decision rule. It also notes the default date behavior and why finalized data matters.

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