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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, destructive=false and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information: this is a discovery tool returning titles, one-line descriptions and excerpts rather than page content, which matters because there is no output schema to reveal that.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: what it does, when to use it, then a concrete invocation example. Nothing is padded, though the example is somewhat redundant given the schema already names both parameters.

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 compensates by describing the return format, and annotations cover the safety profile. Language coverage ("in any language") and the example invocation are present, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, with lang well documented in the schema and the unbounded "results" parameter carrying no description in either place. The description's example illustrates query and lang usage, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema fields, so it sits at the baseline for partial coverage.

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 ("Searches Wikipedia") plus the return shape (matching page titles with a one-line description and an excerpt). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tools wiki_article and wiki_summary, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent faces here.

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 "Use when: you need to find the right Wikipedia page for a topic, person, place or concept" clause gives explicit selection context, and the example shows the tool being called. However, it offers no exclusions and never routes the agent away from wiki_article or wiki_summary when a full page or summary is what's actually wanted.

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