wikipedia_reference_article

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them by noting the output pins a specific revision and carries copyright/source attribution, which matters for citation integrity. It still says nothing about network dependence, language fallbacks, or what happens with a nonexistent title.

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 sentence with no filler, which is good, but that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. Everything about selection and parameters is missing, so the terseness is not earning its place.

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 exists, so the description should explain the returned reference format across the four style options; it only describes the abstract shape. For a read-only citation helper with an enum parameter and several overlapping siblings, this leaves too much to inference.

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% for three parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely fails: 'title' and 'language' are never mentioned, and the four-way 'style' enum (url/markdown/html/attribution) is only obliquely gestured at by 'source/copyright context'. An agent must open the schema to learn that it can request attribution-only output.

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 sentence names a resource ('Wikipedia reference') and a verb ('Return'), but 'reference' is ambiguous between a citation template and the article itself. It does not distinguish this from siblings like wikipedia_get_article or wikimedia_reference_file, so an agent cannot tell which to pick from the description alone.

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: no statement of when to prefer this over wikipedia_get_article (same underlying resource) or wikimedia_reference_file (near-identical naming). The only implicit cue is 'retrieved revision', which hints at post-retrieval citation but is not framed as a selection rule.

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