Query wiki data tables

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the error/repair path: an unknown table or field returns the valid ones, which tells an agent how to recover without guessing.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded followed by failure behavior, with no filler. The concrete bucket names make the abstract 'Bucket table' concept immediately usable.

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 7-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, and error handling, and the schema carries parameter detail. It does not mention pagination/limit behavior in prose, though the cursor and limit parameters are documented in the schema, so the gap is minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are documented in the schema itself, including the where-tuple format and the cursor semantics. The description only alludes to select/where/ordering by name without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource (query Bucket tables) and gives concrete table examples (combat_achievement, infobox_monster, dropsline). It also positions itself against the sibling set with 'structured wiki data no other tool covers', so an agent can distinguish it from get_monster, get_drops, search_wiki, etc.

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?

'Use for structured wiki data no other tool covers' gives a clear selection condition and implies an exclusion (use the specialized sibling when one exists). No specific alternative tool is named, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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