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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating the returned payload (lead paragraph, page description, last edit time, link), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 lines: purpose, usage trigger, concrete example. Front-loaded and free of filler, though '(lead paragraph)' is mildly redundant with 'short summary' and the format could be tightened further.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the payload adequately and the schema fully covers the inputs. Minor gaps remain around disambiguation/redirect handling and failure behavior, but nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 'use wiki_search first if unsure' caveat. The embedded example confirms the required title/lang shape but adds no semantics beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (short summary / lead paragraph of one Wikipedia page) and enumerates what comes back: description, last edit time, link. It implicitly contrasts with wiki_article (full article) by emphasizing 'short summary (lead paragraph)', but never names the siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Use when: you need a quick, sourced overview of a topic' gives a clear selection context. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or pointing to wiki_article/wiki_search as alternatives — that routing hint only appears in the schema's title description, not the tool description.

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