wikipedia_get_sections

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds that it returns a dictionary with title and sections, but this is minor and the output schema likely covers return value details. No additional behavioral context (e.g., error handling, edge cases) is provided.

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 action, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds information about what the tool does or returns.

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 tool with one parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the core functionality and return type, though it could improve by adding usage context relative to siblings.

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 should compensate by explaining the 'title' parameter, but it does not. It simply repeats the word 'title' without adding meaning about format, exactness, or disambiguation.

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 retrieves the sections of a Wikipedia article, which is a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from most sibling tools (e.g., get_summary, get_article), though it does not distinguish from the similar sibling 'get_sections'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_article or get_summary. The description only states what the tool does, with no contextual hints or exclusions.

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