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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it discloses pricing ($0.002 USDC on Base) and the settlement policy (invalid input, not-found and upstream errors cancel settlement). It omits auth mechanics beyond the schema's paymentSignature field and says nothing about rate limits or result ordering.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and payload, followed by the payment/settlement term. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating what comes back (IDs, short descriptions, Wikipedia links) plus failure-cost behavior. Pricing and payment are covered; only edge behavior such as empty-result handling or result ranking is unaddressed.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including defaults and the 1-20 limit range. The description only reinforces that `q` is a name and hints at the entity classes; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ("Search Wikidata ... by name") and enumerates the return payload (IDs, short descriptions, Wikipedia links). It positions itself relative to the enrichment step, but never disambiguates from the sibling `company_search`, which plausibly does the same thing for one entity class.

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?

"so you can pick the right entity before enriching it" gives a clear usage context and sequencing hint toward `entity_company`/`entity_person`. No explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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