mediawiki_get_external_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only a restated return summary and no behavioral context such as pagination limits, caching, or why a read operation is marked non-idempotent. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but not additive.

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?

Roughly five short lines, front-loaded with the action, then USE WHEN, NOT FOR, PARAMETERS, and RETURNS in labeled blocks. Every sentence serves routing or scoping; nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so the RETURN summary is a bonus rather than a necessity, and the tool is simple with one required parameter. Purpose, triggers, and exclusions are all covered. It falls short of 5 only by omitting the batch variant sibling and any statement about how many links are returned or whether results are truncated.

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 both the title and rationale parameters are already documented in the schema itself. The description's 'title: Page name (required)' adds no format, naming-convention, or alternate-identifier semantics beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Get all external URLs from a wiki page') with clear scope. The NOT FOR block explicitly separates it from mediawiki_get_backlinks (incoming links) and mediawiki_check_links (link validation). An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening any 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 description gives explicit trigger phrasings ('what external links are on X', 'show outgoing URLs') plus two named alternatives with the conditions that select them. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives structure the dimension asks for; the only omission is the batch sibling mediawiki_get_external_links_batch, which is minor.

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