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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining that full=true returns plain text capped by max_chars, that disambiguation pages are flagged with alternatives, and that the tool is free. It does not discuss error or no-result behavior, but the described behavior goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Four short sentences front-load the main purpose and then cover key behaviors (full-text cap, disambiguation, free cost) in decreasing importance. There is no filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is complete for an agent to decide and invoke the tool: purpose, output types, language support, full-text behavior, character cap, and disambiguation are all covered. Given no output schema, it could be slightly stronger about no-result or error cases, but this is a minor gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of parameter meaning. It maps query to 'search a topic', lang to 'any language', full to 'full article text as plain text', and max_chars to the cap on that text. It does not restate schema defaults or min/max, but it adds meaningful usage semantics for all four parameters.

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 specifically that it searches Wikipedia in any language and returns the best article's summary, description, thumbnail, and link, or full text via full=true. This clearly identifies the tool's verb, resource, and output, and distinguishes it from sibling search tools like arxiv_search or web_read.

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 makes the intended context clear—Wikipedia lookup in any language with a choice between summary and full text—but it never explicitly names sibling alternatives or states when not to use this tool. It implies usage rather than giving explicit exclusion criteria.

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