Look up a wiki identity card

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

No contradiction with annotations; readOnly/idempotent/openWorld hints are aligned with the description. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is free, never charges, requires no payment headers, hits only Wikipedia/Wikidata, rate-limits discovery pulses, strips URLs from query, and does not translate or run listening.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and every major clause adds useful guidance. It is slightly redundant around the free/no-payment theme ('language never changes billing because this tool is free' plus 'Never charges; no payment headers'), but remains tight for the amount of behavioral and routing context it provides.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete: it covers selection criteria, parameter behavior, exclusions, alternatives, cost, rate limiting, and data sources. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is already 100%, and the description adds meaningful semantics on top: query must be a name not a URL, language selects the Wikipedia host rather than translating, the default is 'en', and language never affects billing. This gives an agent information the schema alone does not convey.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('Wikipedia and Wikidata identity card') and scopes it to companies, products, or brands. It also contrasts with siblings by stating what the tool is not for (social listening, liveness, pricing), so an agent can distinguish it without opening other definitions.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use ('when you only need who or what an entity is'), explicit when-not-to-use ('never use it for social listening'), and names alternatives: research_mentions, get_health, and get_pricing. It also gives practical guidance on omitting language unless a non-English wiki page is needed.

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