wikipedia_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (titles, URLs, excerpts) and the workflow with wikipedia_read, but does not describe any limitations, error conditions, or side effects. For a simple read-only search, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 sentences, no unrelated content. The first sentence states the core function, the second provides an actionable next step. Very efficient.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers the main purpose and a follow-up action. The output schema presumably handles return value details. It could mention the limit parameter, but overall it's sufficiently complete for an agent to select and use it correctly.

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 compensate. It does not explicitly describe the 'query' or 'limit' parameters. The name 'query' is intuitive from context, but 'limit' is not mentioned at all, and its default value is only in 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?

The description states 'Search Wikipedia and return matching article titles, URLs, and excerpts.' This clearly identifies the verb (search), resource (Wikipedia), and output, distinguishing it from siblings like web_search and wikipedia_read.

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?

It clearly sets the context for searching Wikipedia and explicitly directs to use wikipedia_read for full articles. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other search tools like web_search or academic_search, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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