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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it states the data source (MediaWiki REST API), that no auth is required, and what the response includes. This goes beyond the annotation flags without contradicting them.

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 with zero wasted words. The core action and returns are front-loaded, followed by a key parameter note and provenance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, how to scope by language, the underlying API, and authentication requirements. An agent has sufficient information to invoke it correctly.

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%, with each parameter (query, lang, limit) already documented. The description's mention of 'lang (default en)' mirrors the schema, adding no new semantic information. Description adds little beyond the schema, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 performs full-text search across Wikipedia titles and content, and enumerates the return fields (titles, excerpts, descriptions, thumbnails). It is specific about the resource, but it does not name or differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'wikipedia.search.pages', so an agent may not immediately know which search tool to pick.

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 a usage hint about selecting a language edition with 'lang', but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions (e.g., not for summaries or media). Usage context is only implied by the word 'search'.

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