Wikipedia search

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

Annotations cover read-only safety and open-world access, and the description adds operational context beyond that: 'Keyles' disclosures authentication needs, 'structured' hints at predictable output, and 'reputable' describes source quality. It does not mention rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 text is very short, front-loads the core purpose, and every phrase adds some context. The qualifiers are tightly packed, though 'reputable' is more of a filler adjective than an operational detail.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, two parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the most important selection cues: scope, authentication, and output nature. The only real gap is clarifying the 'count' parameter, which is minor for an otherwise simple tool.

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 needed to compensate but does not explain the parameters. 'query' is inferable from the tool name, but 'count' is only given a default of 5 with no stated meaning, leaving the agent to guess whether it controls result count, pages, or something else.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair, 'Dedicated Wikipedia search', which directly names the query target and distinguishes it from the general web_search sibling. The word 'dedicated' signals that this is not a general web tool.

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 phrase 'Dedicated Wikipedia search' implies use when a Wikipedia-specific result is needed, especially versus web_search, and 'Keyles' indicates no authentication prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specialized scope is clear.

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