extract_key_facts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return format ('dictionary containing a list of facts') and optional topic behavior, but does not disclose rate limits, error behavior, or other runtime traits. With strong annotations, this is sufficient but not exceptional.

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?

Two short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second states the return type. No fluff, front-loaded with purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with strong annotations and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return details. However, the 'count' parameter is left undocumented in both the schema and description, creating a clear gap. The description is adequate for a basic read tool but not complete for all parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the 'topic_within_article' parameter via 'optionally focused on a topic', leaving 'count' and 'title' semantics unexplained. The 'count' parameter's effect on the number of facts is not mentioned, making the description insufficient for full parameter understanding.

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 action ('Extract key facts') and the resource ('Wikipedia article'), with an optional topic focus. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_summary or get_sections by explicitly mentioning the output is a list of facts.

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 when to use the tool (when key facts are needed) but does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives. The phrase 'optionally focused on a topic' offers some context, but it does not mention when not to use this tool or compare it to the many summary/section tools.

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