disambiguation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does well: it explains that output is a structured option list grouped by the page's own sections, and pre-empts the dead-end edge case by promising a clear report for regular or nonexistent titles. It stops short of covering pagination/limit interaction or confirming the operation is side-effect-free, but the read-only nature is strongly implied.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the workflow, then the edge-case behavior. No filler and no repetition of the name.

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?

For a 3-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return shape (title plus one-line description, section-grouped), the recommended follow-up tools, and the non-disambiguation outcomes. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents lang, limit, and title fully; baseline 3 applies. The description adds example titles that mirror the schema's own example and nothing about lang or limit semantics beyond what the schema says.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Resolve a Wikipedia disambiguation page into its candidate articles,' with concrete examples ('Mercury', 'Apple', 'Python'). It is clearly distinguished from siblings like search, summary, and article_extract, which it explicitly references as the tools that produce ambiguous results.

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?

Explicitly states the triggering condition ('search/summary land on an ambiguous title') and the full workflow: call this, pick the right candidate, then fetch it with summary or article_extract. Also clarifies the negative case — it reports when the title is a regular article or doesn't exist — so the agent knows when this tool is not the answer.

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