wikipedia_extract_key_facts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by explicitly stating the return type ('a dictionary containing a list of facts') and the optional topic focus, which are behavioral details not covered by 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 only two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the return type in the second. Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 (3 straightforward parameters, with an output schema present and strong annotations), so the description covers the essential behavior and return type. Minor gaps include lack of parameter details and no explicit comparison to similar tools, but these do not undermine usability given the low complexity.

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 for all parameters. While it explains 'topic_within_article' indirectly ('focused on a topic'), it does not explain 'count' or the exact role of 'title'. Given 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, this leaves a significant meaning gap.

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 with a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('key facts from a Wikipedia article'), and includes the optional topic focus. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_summary or get_article, which produce different outputs.

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 appropriate usage ('optionally focused on a topic') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives. It conveys that this is for extracting facts rather than summaries or full articles, which provides clear contextual guidance without explicit exclusions.

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