Read a wiki page

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it returns cleaned text rather than raw markup, and long pages continue via a cursor, which is non-obvious and useful for an agent deciding how to consume results.

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?

One compact sentence with zero filler; purpose comes first, then scoping, then the continuation caveat. 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?

For a 3-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scoping and pagination adequately. It could say slightly more about how a continued response relates to the original request, but nothing essential is missing.

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 title, section and cursor are all documented in the schema, including that section can be a heading or index from get_page_sections. The description largely restates this, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (OSRS Wiki article) plus the output form (clean text) and scoping option (whole page or one section by heading/index). This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_page_sections and search_wiki.

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?

Says to use it to read a wiki article and gestures at sections and continuation, but never states when to prefer search_wiki or get_page_sections instead, nor any preconditions. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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