get_wikipedia_page_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get detailed information'), but doesn't specify rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of returned data (e.g., JSON structure). While it hints at output content, it lacks details on pagination, response size, or potential side effects, which is insufficient for a tool with multiple parameters and an output schema.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key features or use cases, but overall, it's appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 has 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output types, but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and sibling differentiation. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but the description doesn't provide enough context for optimal agent decision-making without additional inference.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'content, summary, and hyperlinked words', which loosely relates to parameters like 'include_full_content' and 'include_categories', but doesn't explain their purposes, defaults, or effects. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names, failing to fully compensate for the coverage gap, though it hints at the tool's scope.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific Wikipedia page'), specifying the types of information returned ('content, summary, and hyperlinked words'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_wikipedia_page_summary' by mentioning additional details beyond just a summary. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_wikipedia_page_sections' or 'get_wikipedia_page_sections_info', which might provide overlapping or more structured content.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives like 'get_wikipedia_page_summary' for a brief overview or 'search_wikipedia_pages' for finding pages. There's no context on prerequisites, such as needing a valid page title, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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