wikipedia_get_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the return format ('dictionary with the title and summary string') and error behavior ('includes an error message instead of a summary'). This goes beyond what the annotations convey.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or extraneous content.

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 and strong annotations, the description adequately covers the main behavior, return content, and error handling. It does not mention language edition or filtering options, but these are not necessary for a summary operation. The absence of an explicit output schema in the context is mitigated by the description's mention of the return structure.

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%, and the description does not compensate. The 'title' parameter is not explained; the description only refers to 'a Wikipedia article,' leaving the agent to infer that 'title' is the article title. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no additional semantic detail.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a summary of a Wikipedia article.' It clearly states what the tool does and aligns with the tool name. While there are siblings like 'get_summary', the description is unambiguous enough to distinguish this tool as the Wikipedia-specific summary retriever.

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 a summary is needed but offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like get_article or get_sections. It does not mention exclusions or provide comparisons, so usage context is only implied.

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