Wikipedia Summary ($0.01)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions cost ($0.01 USDC on Base) but does not disclose response format, length of summary, disambiguation handling, or any rate limits. It lacks detail about behavioral traits beyond being a factual summary.

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?

Two sentences with clear front-loading of purpose and inclusion of cost. No wasted words, but the second sentence could be integrated gracefully. Still efficient and scannable.

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, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate: it covers source, purpose, and cost. However, it omits key context like summary length, formatting, and how to handle ambiguous topics or missing pages.

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 100% with an example ('e.g. Bitcoin'). The description adds 'any topic' and 'from Wikipedia,' but these are implicit from the tool name and schema. Baseline is 3; the description provides minimal additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 explicitly states 'Factual summary of any topic from Wikipedia — for research agents,' clearly indicating the tool summarizes Wikipedia topics for research purposes. It distinguishes from sibling tools, which are market data, contact extraction, text extraction, or weather, none of which provide Wikipedia summaries.

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 says 'for research agents,' implying use for factual research, but does not specify when to avoid this tool or provide alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, such as topics not on Wikipedia or needing real-time data.

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