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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses rich behavioral details: ranking combines text relevance and monthly pageviews, follows redirects, and handles abbreviations (examples: 'usa' → United States). It also clarifies that it searches all corpora by default. This goes well beyond a minimal purpose statement, though it does not mention rate limits or error handling.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then behavioral detail, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place. The examples are concrete and illustrative without 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return structure ('ranked {title, wikidata_id, description, summary_snippet}'), the ranking behavior, corpus handling, and follow-up tools. With just 3 parameters and a simple return object, this description covers all essential aspects for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., the effect of omitting `corpus`), but this is already present in the schema's own field description. No additional parameter-level meaning is provided beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Find the right title when you only have a partial name or a rough description.' It clearly states that the tool resolves entities to their canonical titles, distinguishing it from sibling tools lookup() and article() which serve different follow-up purposes.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use this tool (partial name/rough description) and provides direct alternatives: 'Follow up with lookup() for facts or article() for the text.' It also explains the corpus parameter behavior ('Searches every corpus at once unless you pass `corpus`'), giving clear usage context.

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