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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that certain fields (title, description, extract, content_urls.desktop.page) are returned by default, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, the limit behavior, or error cases.

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 compact sentences with the purpose and the returned fields front-loaded, and the equivalence note relegated to parentheses. The phrasing is slightly dense but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the default return shape, and the clify_run equivalence aids routing. For a simple read-only summary tool, only the undocumented 'limit' parameter and pagination behavior remain unaddressed.

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 67%: 'title' and 'fields' are documented in the schema, and 'limit' has no description. The description's mention of default-returned fields loosely ties to the 'fields' parameter but adds no syntax or constraint details, so it only marginally supplements the 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?

States a specific resource (en.wikipedia.org article) and operation (short summary), and lists the returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like hnsearch__search or pypi__get-package by resource. It stops short of an explicit sibling differentiation, but the resource scoping is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical notes it is equivalent to 'clify_run site=wikipedia command=summary', which helps an agent recognize a duplicate path, but this is an equivalence note rather than a when-to-use/when-not guide. No conditions or prerequisites for selecting this tool are stated, leaving usage implied.

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