wikipedia_get_coordinates

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that the return value is a dictionary containing coordinate information, but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., article not found, no coordinates available) or any side effects. The added value beyond annotations is minimal but not contradictory.

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 concise: two short sentences that state the purpose and return type without extraneous information. Every sentence contributes value, and the structure is optimal for quick comprehension.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose and return type. However, it does not mention edge cases like missing coordinates or invalid article titles. With an output schema present, the return structure is covered, so the description is largely complete but could be slightly more robust.

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?

The only parameter 'title' has no schema description (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what 'title' represents (e.g., the exact Wikipedia article title) or any formatting requirements. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the lack of explicit documentation reduces score.

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', specifying the action (get coordinates) and the resource (Wikipedia article). Although a sibling named 'get_coordinates' exists, the explicit mention of 'Wikipedia article' distinguishes it, and the tool name itself includes the 'wikipedia' prefix.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_article, get_summary, or the sibling get_coordinates). No prerequisites, context, or restrictions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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