wikipedia_get_related_topics

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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by explaining it returns a list up to a specified limit and that relatedness is based on links and categories, which goes beyond the structured hints.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. There is no fluff or repetition of schema annotations.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema, clear annotations, and existing output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could explicitly guide selection among sibling tools or mention edge cases, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward read-only 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains 'limit' via 'up to the specified limit' and implies 'title' through 'a Wikipedia article.' While not exhaustive, these cues give meaning to both parameters beyond the raw schema, though a more explicit mention of title would improve completeness.

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 it retrieves related topics to a Wikipedia article based on links and categories, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_links or get_sections, which focus on different aspects of an article.

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 its usage for obtaining related topics, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools such as get_links and get_summary exist, but no differentiation or exclusion is provided, leaving the agent to infer the right context.

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