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

Annotations cover only the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond that: the result shape (links, not page content), a per-call price, the x402 payment rails and networks, and an auto-pay client behavior note. This is unusually rich disclosure for a read-only tool.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then return shape, then alternatives, then params/pricing; each sentence carries distinct information. It runs slightly long because pricing, payment networks and the sample call are packed into one block, but no sentence is redundant.

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 correctly compensates by describing the return value (abstract plus up to 5 links) and explicitly warning that page content is not returned. Combined with the alternatives and cost model, 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 description coverage is 100% with a single required parameter, so the schema already documents query fully with its own examples. The description only restates 'query (required)' and repeats an example input for the free sample, adding little semantic value over the schema.

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 (a Wikipedia-backed summary plus up to 5 links) and immediately scopes it as a 'quick factual lookup'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by name, contrasting with search-read (full content) and news-search (breaking news).

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use domains (people, places, concepts, history, science), an explicit when-not-to-use (breaking news), and names the two alternative tools with the condition that selects each. Nothing is left to inference.

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