search_wikipedia

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

The description shows the return data format (titles, URLs, snippets) and the 'No API key required' note is a useful practical detail about usage friction. Annotations carry weight here and are not contradicted.

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 short sentences, each carrying unique information: what it does, what comes back, and a friction detail. Nothing 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?

For a simple search tool with a small parameter surface and a defined response shape, the description covers the essentials. The main shortfall is lack of explicit routing guidance, which is common and minor here. An explicit 'if you need scholarly sources, use search_scholar_meta' would push this to 5.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by naming the return type and surfaces an important detail ('No API key required') that isn't in the schema. However, it doesn't add details about query format or semantics beyond what 'Search query' already states, so it doesn't fully cover the gap.

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 the verb+resource action ('Search Wikipedia') and lists the return payload contents. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_web or search_news, but its focus on the Wikipedia domain is enough to generally separate it.

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 description states a clear benefit ('No API key required') that helps determine when to use it, but there's no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool naming. The sibling list and scoping might be clear enough for some agents, but explicit exclusions (like 'for general web, use search_web') would strengthen it.

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