wikipedia_get_article

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the call can surface a Wikidata ID, a disambiguation flag and a revision-specific citation URL, which is genuinely useful behavior context, but it never clarifies whether these are outputs or options, leaving the agent uncertain.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with a clear verb, so it is compact. However, it crams parameters and return values into one dense comma list, making it hard to tell which nouns are inputs and which are outputs.

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?

With no output schema, the description does attempt to disclose return content (Wikidata ID, disambiguation flag, citation URL), which is the main gap a bare schema leaves. What remains missing is usage guidance against the many sibling tools, and disambiguation of which listed items are inputs.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It adds meaning for two of four parameters ('full' via 'introduction or full plain text', 'wikitext' via 'optional revision wikitext') but says nothing about 'title' or the 'language' parameter's default of 'en'.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Fetch a Wikipedia ... article') and scopes it to introduction vs full plain text, which separates it from the search/list siblings. It does not explicitly name wikipedia_search or wikipedia_reference_article as the alternatives, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to pick this over wikipedia_search (to find a title) or wikipedia_reference_article (to cite one). The 'introduction or full' phrasing implies a choice via the full flag but never frames it as a usage decision.

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