wikipedia_pageviews

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses free/no-auth access, monthly granularity, human-only traffic (bot traffic excluded by Wikimedia's 'user' agent filter), all access methods, and the behavior of response_format. It also notes automatic space handling and supported duration forms.

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 description is well-structured: purpose first, then usage context, then parameter details, then return format. Every sentence contributes useful information without filler or redundancy, and the sections are easy to parse.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is operationally complete. It specifies all inputs with defaults, explains the output record structure, and documents behavioral caveats such as bot filtering and response format differences. An agent can invoke it correctly without additional documentation.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates. For article it gives title format and space-handling behavior; for timeframe it lists duration examples, the default, and supported forms; for response_format it explains 'concise' vs 'full' and the default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Monthly Wikipedia pageview counts for an article.' It further distinguishes itself from Google Trends' search-interest signal by framing it as a free, no-auth reference/reading-interest signal, making its purpose and differentiation clear.

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 clearly positions the tool as complementary to Google Trends and explains that divergence between the two signals can be worth flagging, giving the agent context on when to use it. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficiently clear.

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