wikipedia_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output format ('plain-text') and that no API key is required, which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about truncation, very large articles, redirect handling, or behavior on a nonexistent title.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, with no filler. Efficient, though the second sentence is a minor accessory note rather than substantive content.

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 two-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what it returns, no auth). It stops short of the size/limit and error-handling behavior an agent might need when calling it against arbitrary titles.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what 'title' already conveys, and the 'lang' parameter is entirely unmentioned. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Get) and resource (full plain-text Wikipedia article) scoped by title. The word 'full' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling wikipedia_summary, but no sibling is named explicitly, keeping it just 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 guidance is 'No key needed,' which is an access note rather than a when-to-use directive. It never explains when to pick this over wikipedia_summary or wikipedia_search, leaving the agent to infer the choice from the resource name alone.

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