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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that the tool retrieves cited sources and suggests it is a read-only retrieval operation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and every phrase earns its place. It efficiently communicates purpose and usage without redundancy.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, but the complete lack of parameter documentation in both the schema and description leaves a gap for users unfamiliar with the 'lang' or 'project' fields. The description covers purpose and usage well, but not enough to be fully self-contained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain 'title', 'lang', or 'project'. The example query implies 'title' refers to a Wikipedia article, but the parameter names are not explicitly clarified. The description adds marginal value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool returns citations/references/sources cited by a Wikipedia article. It uses a specific verb-noun structure and provides concrete example queries like 'what sources back the claim that...' which distinguish it from sibling tools such as page_metadata or page_summary.

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 gives explicit usage contexts through example questions and intents (e.g., harvesting authoritative external links). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the examples make it clear when to reach for this tool over siblings.

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