get_wikipedia_page_sections_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'detailed sections information' but doesn't specify what that entails (e.g., content, metadata, structure), whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage, parameters, and behavioral traits, which are crucial for effective tool selection and invocation in this context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters (1 required, 3 optional), the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It implies parameters like 'page_title' and possibly 'language' but doesn't explain their semantics, such as format for 'section_titles' or 'section_indices', or the purpose of 'language' beyond its default. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 sections information') and resource ('about a specific Wikipedia page'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_wikipedia_page_sections' or 'get_wikipedia_page_info', which likely provide related but different information.

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 alternatives such as 'get_wikipedia_page_sections' or 'get_wikipedia_page_summary'. It lacks context about specific use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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