wikipedia_mentions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only adds 'Zero keys required' beyond the schema. It does not mention rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, or what happens if the domain has no mentions. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds context about the signal's importance and access. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

With no output schema, the agent does not know what fields are returned (e.g., article titles, URLs). The description only says 'list Wikipedia articles', leaving ambiguity. Parameter details are well-covered by the schema, but the output format is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter (domain, limit, lang).

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 verb 'list', the resource 'Wikipedia articles', and the scope 'that reference the given domain'. The additional context about being a 'highest-lift signal' provides useful rationale, and the tool is distinct from siblings like 'check_citations' or 'citation_evidence'.

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 implies usage for assessing citation importance via the 'highest-lift signal' line, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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