wikipedia_summarize_article_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, providing a strong safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns a dictionary with a summary or an error, which is basic. It does not disclose error conditions or behavior for missing sections, but annotations cover the main behavioral traits.

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 very concise—two sentences, front-loaded with the action. It wastes no words, though it could briefly mention the required parameters without compromising brevity.

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 3 parameters with no schema descriptions and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits details about the optional max_length parameter and how to specify the section_title (e.g., exact case). The output schema exists but is not referenced, and the description does not address potential errors.

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%, meaning parameters have no descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain the parameters (title, section_title, max_length) beyond the overall purpose. It does not clarify the format of section_title or the effect of max_length, leaving the agent with no additional semantic value.

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 action ('Get a summary') and the resource ('specific section of a Wikipedia article'). It distinguishes the tool from full-article summary tools like 'get_summary' but does not differentiate it from the similarly named sibling 'summarize_article_section'.

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 related siblings such as 'summarize_article_for_query' or 'get_summary'. The description lacks any context about appropriate use cases or alternatives.

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