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

With no annotations, the description does carry some burden and does add genuinely useful context: calls use the caller's OpenAny gateway credentials and charges/authorization are decided by the gateway, telling the agent this is a billed, credentialed call. It stops short of disclosing result shape, whether results are ranked/snippet-based, or pagination behavior beyond the limit cap in the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the attribution rule and the auth/billing note. The gateway sentence is somewhat boilerplate but earns its place by telling the agent the call is credentialed and charged; no filler or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is the only place to learn what a result looks like, yet it never says whether results carry titles, snippets, URLs, or page IDs — which matters since it also instructs the agent to link to the original article. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is a moderate rather than fatal gap.

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% for both parameters (q = search keywords, limit = max results with min/max bounds), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about query syntax, language behavior, or how limit affects cost, which is baseline-appropriate at 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?

"Find Chinese Wikipedia articles by keyword" gives a clear verb and a specific resource with the language variant named, which distinguishes it from the generic wikimedia_get_search and from wikivoyage_get_zh_search by site. It does not explicitly name either sibling, so the distinction relies on the agent inferring it from the word 'Chinese' and 'Wikipedia'.

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 states an attribution/linking obligation for displaying excerpts, but never says when to pick this tool over wikimedia_get_search, wikimedia_get_zh_article_intro, or the Wikivoyage siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are given, leaving selection entirely to the agent's inference from the name.

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