simple_summary

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful context: the return shape (title + summary + thumbnail) and the behavior when no Simple English article exists. It stops short of return-format details, pagination, or any auth/rate-limit notes, but for a read-only lookup tool the coverage is solid.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that leads with the core action and then folds in audience, fallback, and edge-case behavior. Slightly long, but no sentence is wasted.

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 and a single fully documented param, the description supplies everything needed to call correctly: the output shape by reference to `summary`, the missing-article behavior, and the alternative tool. Nothing material 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?

A single parameter with 100% schema description coverage including an example ('Photosynthesis', 'Quantum_mechanics'), so the schema does the heavy lifting; the description only restates 'by title'. Baseline 3 per the high-coverage rule.

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 and resource ('Get the Simple English Wikipedia version of a topic by title') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling `summary` by naming the exact shape it mirrors. An agent can tell it apart from `summary` and `search` without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('explain it simply', kids/ESL readers, quick intuition, or when the full article is too dense), explicit fallback ('pointing you at `summary` for the full version'), and it discloses the no-Simple-English-article case rather than leaving the agent to guess.

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