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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does add useful non-obvious behavior by stating that credentials come from the OpenAny gateway and that charging/authorization are gateway-determined, which an agent cannot infer elsewhere. It does not state read-only semantics explicitly, nor whether multiple IDs are accepted, how large claim/sitelink payloads can get, or what error surface exists for invalid or missing entities.

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, front-loaded with the operation and its field scope, with no filler. The second sentence is closer to gateway boilerplate but still conveys authorization and billing context, so it earns its place without inflating the definition.

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 five-parameter, all-required read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is fetched and who pays but says nothing about the response shape, single-vs-multiple entity behavior, or language fallback. Adequate to invoke it, thin for interpreting results.

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 all five parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds a little meaning by enumerating the field categories available via props, though it uses "statements" for the enum value "claims" and omits the combined "labels|descriptions" option, so it does not materially outperform the 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 gives a specific verb ("look up") tied to a specific resource (Wikidata entity) and enumerates the retrievable fields (labels, descriptions, aliases, statements, sitelinks), which matches the tool name well. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close siblings wikimedia_get_wikidata_entity_search and wikimedia_get_wikidata_id, which an agent must otherwise separate by schema inspection.

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?

"by entity ID" implicitly communicates the precondition that the caller must already have a Q-id, which suggests the lookup should follow a search step. There is no explicit guidance about when to use this versus wikimedia_get_wikidata_entity_search (find the ID) or wikimedia_get_wikidata_id, so routing between the Wikidata siblings is left to inference.

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