wikidata_query

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

Given no annotations, the description is the only source for behavioral traits. It discloses limits (query length, timeout, max results) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, error handling, or response format. Partial disclosure.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, immediately followed by limits and reuse suggestion. No unnecessary words; each sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema is provided. The description fails to specify what the tool returns (e.g., JSON format, result structure), which is critical for a query tool. This missing detail reduces completeness.

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 50% (only 'query' has description). The description adds context for timeout via '15s timeout' but does not explain the query parameter beyond 'SPARQL query string'. Marginal improvement over schema.

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 is for Wikidata SPARQL queries and specifies use cases like people, places, organizations, factual relationships. It provides some differentiation from sibling tools (e.g., web, wiki, youtube) by focusing on structured data, but lacks explicit comparison.

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 includes constraints (5000 char limit, 15s timeout, 1000 max results) and suggests storing results in KG for reuse, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide negative guidance.

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