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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses result fields, licensing display obligations, and that gateway credentials determine charges and authorization, which is useful context. It does not state read-only nature explicitly, pagination behavior, rate limits, or error behavior, so transparency is only 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and result shape, followed by licensing and gateway notes. It is reasonably efficient, though the licensing/display instructions are somewhat peripheral to invocation and could be tightened.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential result fields, licensing context, and gateway billing/auth behavior. It does not need to explain return values structurally because the description already names the key fields.

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 the schema already documents both q and limit clearly. The description mentions searching "by keyword," which maps to q but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Search English Wikipedia by keyword," and adds what results include. "English" implicitly distinguishes it from the Chinese Wikipedia sibling, but it does not explicitly route to or differentiate from other Wikimedia search tools such as Commons or Wikivoyage.

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 scope is clear enough to imply when to use it: keyword search over English Wikipedia. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like wikimedia_get_zh_search or wikimedia_get_commons_search, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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