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 pagination behavior (pages up to 20,000 characters, use start to read further) and output format (plain text), which are useful beyond the annotations.

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?

Three compact sentences: the core description, the usage condition, and a concrete example. It is front-loaded with the key behavior and contains no wasted wording.

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 read-only retrieval tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description clearly covers what is returned (full plain text, paginated) and how to continue reading. It omits edge cases like missing pages or redirects, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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 75% and the schema documents title, lang, and start. The description adds an example with title, lang, and max_chars, and explains page size and start usage in prose. It partially compensates for the missing max_chars description, though it does not explicitly state that max_chars sets the page size.

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 (one Wikipedia article) and output (full text as plain text), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the summary sibling by adding 'beyond the summary'. An agent can tell this is the full-article reader, not a summary or search tool.

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?

Provides a clear use condition ('you need details beyond the summary') which implies when to choose it over wiki_summary. It does not explicitly name wiki_search as an alternative or state when not to use it, but the routing is clear enough.

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