wanted_articles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: read-only, GET-only, no new dependencies, article namespace only, and template-driven redlink clusters collapsed. It omits rate limits, pagination, and error behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 and the ranking mechanism, and most sentences earn their place. 'Uses the read-only Wanted Pages report' and 'Read-only via the action API — GET only' are somewhat redundant restatements of the same read-only property.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (redlink titles ranked by incoming link count), the scope (article namespace only), and the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters (lang enum, limit with default and max) fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds ranking semantics but nothing further about the parameters themselves.

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 resource (most-wanted missing articles) with the exact data source (Wanted Pages report, action API list=querypage) and ranking basis. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings top_reads and recent_changes, so an agent can select it without opening any 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?

Positions the tool as the 'discovery companion' to top_reads (what people read) and recent_changes (what editors did), giving clear selection context. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not rule or naming a true substitute for the same need.

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