Read Wiki

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the behavioral guidance of starting with 'index', which is beyond the annotations. It also implicitly conveys that the tool is non-mutating by describing it as 'read', but the annotations carry the primary burden. The description adds no contradictions and provides useful context.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the resource and content scope, the second gives a concrete starting instruction. There is zero redundancy, and every sentence earns its place. The examples are compact and illustrative without being verbose.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what content it contains, and how to begin using it. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't need to explain return format; the agent knows it will receive the page content. Annotations cover safety, so nothing 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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'page', and the schema already includes a description with examples. The description reinforces this by explicitly mentioning the 'index' special value and the pattern of usage. It adds value by explaining the 'index' convention that the schema doesn't fully emphasize, so it goes beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Read'), a resource ('a page from Finn's knowledge base'), and the content scope ('compiled UK (and US) tax and accounting guidance'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_wiki or read_company_wiki by clearly defining the knowledge base and its purpose. The instruction to call with page='index' further clarifies its role.

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 explicitly instructs to call with page='index' first to list all pages, which is a clear usage prerequisite. It implies this is the tool for reading static knowledge base pages, but it doesn't explicitly contrast it with search_wiki or read_company_wiki. However, the content scope ('for company directors') provides enough context for an agent to decide when this tool applies.

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