Get a trail's Wikipedia link

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

The description explicitly states the tool returns a URL or a not_found result, which covers the key behavioral outcomes. However, since there are no annotations, it would benefit from explicitly stating that the operation is read-only or has no side effects. The clarity is adequate but not thorough.

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 with two sentences, no redundant information, and the key points are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without being verbose.

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 simplicity of the tool (no output schema, few parameters), the description covers the main purpose and behavior adequately. It mentions the condition and the two possible return types. It could be improved by noting any error cases or the format of the not_found result, but overall it is sufficient.

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 input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 resolves a Wikipedia article URL for a route by OSM relation id. It specifies the condition (if tagged) and the outcome (URL or not_found). The purpose is well-defined but could be slightly more specific about when to use this tool versus siblings.

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 the tool only works if the route is tagged with a Wikipedia link, but it doesn't explicitly explain when to prefer this over related tools like get_route_details or search_routes_by_name. No alternative guidance or context for usage is provided.

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