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

The read-only nature is already marked by annotations (readOnlyHint: true). The description adds valuable context by noting it returns no claim data, and the parameter schema clarifies the languages fallback behavior. While these are useful additions, the core safety profile (read-only, no side effects) is already well-covered by annotations, so the incremental contribution is moderate.

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?

Concise yet information-dense: the core purpose followed by the most critical operational constraints ('Lightweight', 'no claim data', '50 ID limit', 'batched') and a use-case anchor. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy. Exactly the right size 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?

The existence of a complete output schema means the return shape is documented elsewhere. The description sufficiently covers the primary use case, the 'lightweight' nature, and the batching. A small gap: it doesn't explicitly state the behavior when an ID cannot be found (e.g., error vs. skip), but this is covered by the output schema's error handling and isn't critical for basic usage.

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%, and the schema itself documents both parameters clearly (with formats in the IDs description and fallback in the languages). The description adds semantics by reinforcing the batch limit ('50') and providing a usage example pattern. However, it doesn't add new syntax details beyond what's already in 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Resolve') with a clear resource ('QIDs or PIDs to their human-readable labels and descriptions'), and explicitly scopes what the tool does NOT do ('returns no claim data') and its batch limit (50 IDs). It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like wikidata_get_entity and wikidata_get_statements by its specific focus on label resolution.

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 includes a use-case pattern ('receive QIDs from a SPARQL query, then humanize them') and notes the batching behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly mention sibling tools or state when NOT to use it, which limits its utility for an agent choosing between tools.

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