search_wikipedia

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as result ranking, pagination, or network behavior. It merely restates what could be inferred from the tool name and annotations, providing no extra transparency.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. There is zero verbosity and all words add value.

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 search tool, the description combined with rich annotations and a complete input schema is sufficient. The output schema exists, so return values are accounted for, and the safety and world assumptions are covered by annotations. No additional context is necessary for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 both 'query' and 'limit' are fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 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's function: 'Search Wikipedia for articles matching a query.' This uses a specific verb ('search') and a clear resource ('Wikipedia') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_article or get_summary, which retrieve specific content rather than perform a search.

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 (when you need to find articles by query) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_sections or get_links, which are alternatives for other purposes.

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