wikidata_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no mention of read-only nature, rate limits, result ranking, pagination, or whether it hits a public API. It only adds that entities span people/places/concepts, which is thin for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It could be slightly richer without becoming verbose, but it is efficient and wastes nothing.

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 zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is too sparse. It says nothing about return shape, count/limit behavior interpretation, or error/permission context that an agent would need to call confidently.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that search is 'by label' (the query param), adding no syntax, matching behavior, or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Wikidata entities') with an explicit scope (people, places, concepts) and the search key (label). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like wikidata_get_entity (fetch by ID) and wikipedia_search (different corpus).

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 implies a lookup-by-label use case but does not explicitly say when to use this versus wikidata_get_entity or wikipedia_search, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage is inferable from the corpus and 'by label' phrasing, but no alternatives are named.

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