wiki_fill

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial value beyond them: the CC BY-SA attribution obligation, the fact-only constraint for manual writes, and the iterative to_write/remaining loop contract. It still does not state auth requirements or rate limits, keeping it below 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-loads the core action in the first clause and keeps to three dense sentences with no filler. The heavy use of backticked identifiers makes it information-rich but slightly harder to scan than a cleaner breakdown would be.

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, the description correctly explains the return shape (to_write, remaining) and the follow-up workflow. Combined with the annotation safety profile, an agent has nearly everything needed, though permission/pagination edge cases remain unstated.

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 0% and the single parameter has only a title and default, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that limit caps 'entries per call', but gives no range, unit nuance, or behavior when omitted beyond the default value already in 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?

States a specific verb (fill) and resource (entries without text) and the exact content used (English Wikipedia lead paragraphs linked via MusicBrainz). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling wiki_write by explaining that the leftovers go there instead, so an agent can route correctly.

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 clear operational context: 'Call again while remaining > 0' and 'store each with wiki_write' for the entries this tool cannot fill. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it versus wiki_todo or wiki_sources, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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