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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns specific fields and searches by label/alias, but does not elaborate on search mechanics, pagination, or language handling. The description provides useful context beyond annotations but is not extensive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with action and examples, no wasted words. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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 3 parameters fully described in schema, an output schema, and annotations covering behavior, the description is largely complete. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. specific siblings, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'by label or alias' and gives examples, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., limit, language). The description paraphrases the schema without adding new insights.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Search Wikidata entities by label or alias'), provides concrete examples, and mentions what it returns (IDs, labels, descriptions, aliases). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_entity (which retrieves by ID) and resolve_entity (which disambiguates).

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 states it is 'useful for finding the Wikidata ID of any concept', which gives clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly define when not to use or compare to alternatives like get_entity or resolve_entity, but the purpose implies it is for name-based lookup.

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