mediawiki_compare_topic

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is already covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that it returns page mentions with context, detected value mismatches, and inconsistencies. It does not mention rate limits or permission requirements, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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 and then uses clear headings for USE WHEN, NOT FOR, PARAMETERS, and RETURNS. Every section earns its place by helping the agent decide whether and how to call the tool.

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?

The tool has an output schema, and the description still summarizes the return shape as page mentions, value mismatches, and inconsistencies. Combined with explicit usage guidance, an alternative-tool exclusion, and annotation coverage, the definition gives the agent everything needed to call it correctly.

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 100%, and the schema itself documents all four parameters including the optional rationale field. The description repeats the topic, category, and limit parameters with basic meanings but omits rationale entirely, adding little beyond the structured schema. The baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Compare how a topic is described across multiple pages.' It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from mediawiki_compare_revisions, so an agent can route correctly 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?

The USE WHEN section gives concrete user-intent examples such as 'how is X described on different pages' and 'find inconsistencies about timeout.' The NOT FOR section names the exact alternative tool for revision comparison, making the usage boundary unambiguous.

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