wikipedia_get_coordinates

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), lowering the bar for description. The description adds only that a dictionary is returned, which is also documented by the output schema. No behavioral details like error handling are provided, but none contradict the 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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and states the return type without unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with a strong output schema and clear annotations. The description fully covers the tool's purpose and basic behavior, and the existing schema/annotations cover the rest. Nothing essential 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 0%, so the description must compensate. The only parameter, 'title', is self-explanatory and the description's reference to 'Wikipedia article' adds context that the title is the article's title. However, no additional detail or format is given, making this adequate but not exceptional.

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 'Get the coordinates of a Wikipedia article' with a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_coordinates' which appears to perform the same function.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool or how it differs from alternatives. Given the presence of many sibling tools including what looks like a duplicate, the lack of usage context is a notable gap.

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