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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description goes well beyond that: it discloses the 24-hour cache, the license under which content is returned, the supplementary URL/author links, and a concrete pay-per-call model (0.005 USDC via x402 across five chains). Pricing and caching are material operational facts an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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-loaded with the "Use when" trigger, then output contents, then caching and price — every sentence carries information. It is slightly dense in the parenthetical chain list, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a two-parameter lookup with an output schema, 100% schema coverage and full annotations, the description closes the remaining gaps: what is returned, how fresh it is, what it costs, and under what license. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters (lang, title) are already documented, and the description only echoes that output is "in any language" and keyed on a page title. No added format, default, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the 3 baseline 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 (returns a summary) and resource (the Wikipedia summary and lead section for a page title), so an agent can immediately tell this is Wikipedia-sourced content. It never mentions the generic sibling get_summarize, so differentiation is implied by the source rather than stated.

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?

"Use when an agent needs a reliable plain-text summary of a topic" gives clear positive context for invocation. It stops short of exclusions or naming alternatives, so there is no guidance on when to prefer get_summarize, get_web_markdown or get_extract instead.

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