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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that it 'return[s] its content' but does not detail behavior such as search disambiguation, content format, or error handling. This is acceptable given the annotations but not rich.

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 two lines, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes a minimal Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary fluff.

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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations and a clear argument description, the description is mostly complete. The phrase 'return its content' is somewhat vague about output format, but it is sufficient for a basic lookup tool.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the 'topic' parameter, but the description compensates with an Args section explaining 'Topic to look up (e.g. 'Artificial intelligence')'. This provides clear meaning and a concrete example.

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 'Look up a Wikipedia article and return its content', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crawl_website and google_search by being explicitly Wikipedia-focused.

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 implies usage for Wikipedia lookups but does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of crawl_website or google_search, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative recommendations. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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