mediawiki_compare_topic

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and open-world hints. Description adds what the tool returns (page mentions with context, mismatches, inconsistencies), providing behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Description is concise, well-structured with headers (USE WHEN, NOT FOR, PARAMETERS, RETURNS). Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 tool complexity (topic comparison across pages) and existence of output schema (referenced in RETURNS), description covers usage, parameters, and return values completely.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description repeats param info but adds default value for limit and clarifies purpose of category. Adds little beyond 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?

Description opens with clear verb + resource: 'Compare how a topic is described across multiple pages.' It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool mediawiki_compare_revisions in NOT FOR section.

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?

Has explicit USE WHEN and NOT FOR sections that state when to use and when not to, with a named alternative tool (mediawiki_compare_revisions).

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