wiki_sources

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds a useful list of returned data fields, but it does not explain why the tool is not read-only, what side effects may occur, or any network/rate-limit behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the returned data without filler. It is dense but efficient, using a parenthetical to handle the album/artist switch compactly.

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 the work of enumerating return fields and the artist/album distinction. It omits sibling-tool context and return format details, but for a two-parameter retrieval tool those gaps are minor.

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 parameter meaning. It successfully clarifies that album=None selects artist-level facts and that providing an album switches to album-level data, which is the key semantic needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 what the tool returns (facts and links) for either an artist or an album, distinguishing both modes via album=None. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling tools like wiki_todo, wiki_fill, or wiki_write, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only usage hint is the parenthetical album=None, which explains parameter behavior but not when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusion guidance.

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