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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond mentioning that it returns content. It does not disclose any potential limitations, such as rate limits, content truncation, or error handling. For a tool with only annotation coverage, the description adds little value.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It contains no wordiness. However, the formatting could be slightly improved for readability, but it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the existence of annotations, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not describe the output format (e.g., plain text, structured sections) or any constraints like maximum length. For a lookup tool, this is a minor gap but sufficient for basic use.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'topic'. The description adds meaning by stating 'Topic to look up' and providing an example ('e.g. Artificial intelligence'). This compensates for the schema's lack of documentation, making the parameter's purpose clear.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Look up' and the resource 'Wikipedia article', and specifies the result 'return its content'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, many of which are for specific domains or other web-scraping functions like crawl_website or google_search.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage for Wikipedia lookups but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for other needs.

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