aesthetics-wiki-mcp

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that content is 'cleaned' (behavioral trait), mentions case-insensitivity and underscore/space handling, and describes the return structure. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by well-structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the Args section details parameters clearly, and the Returns section explains output. No wasted words.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by the Returns section), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return values, and behavioral nuances like cleaning and formatting, leaving no significant gaps for the agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'name' is clarified as a page title with examples and formatting notes, and 'max_chars' is defined as a soft cap with a default value. This adds essential 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 clearly states the specific action ('Fetch the cleaned content') and resource ('an aesthetic's wiki page'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_aesthetic_images (which likely fetches images only) or search_aesthetic (which searches rather than fetches a specific page). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage by specifying what it fetches (cleaned wiki content), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_aesthetic or list_related. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description alone.

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