wikidata.entity

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It indicates a read-only operation ('Fetch') but lacks details on error handling for invalid IDs, limitations on claims retrieval, or any side effects. The mention of 'maxClaimsPerProperty' default is in the schema, not description.

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 concise at two sentences. The first sentence defines the core purpose, and the second adds context about scale and licensing. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers what the entity record contains (labels, descriptions, claims, sitelinks) and scale. However, it omits details on output format, parameter effects, and common pitfalls, leaving a knowledgeable user to infer from the schema.

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 50% (id and languages have descriptions). The tool description adds no explicit parameter explanations beyond hinting at language selection. The 'includeClaims' and 'maxClaimsPerProperty' parameters are not addressed, leaving semantics unclear without schema inspection.

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 'Fetch a Wikidata entity' with specific resource identification (Q42, P31, etc.) and outlines the contained data (labels, descriptions, claims, sitelinks). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'wikipedia.summary' by focusing on structured knowledge-graph records rather than article summaries.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools for specific use cases like textual summaries or broader searches.

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