wikipedia.summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the output (summary with thumbnail URL) but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, or error handling. The agent cannot determine if the tool is read-only or if it has side effects.

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 extremely concise—one sentence. It avoids fluff but could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose. Front-loading is fine as the purpose is clear upfront.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return structure. It mentions summary and thumbnail URL but does not clarify the format (text, JSON, etc.) or error conditions. For a simple tool, it is minimally sufficient but lacks completeness for agent to handle all scenarios.

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 describes parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond stating the tool returns a summary, missing details like required parameter (title) or default for lang. Baseline is appropriate.

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 returns a Wikipedia article summary with a thumbnail URL, differentiating it from siblings like wikidata.entity. It specifies the resource (Wikipedia article) and the action (summary), leaving no ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wikidata.entity, search.web). The description does not specify prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit directions.

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