search_wikipedia_pages

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 that the tool returns the first 5 results with information to aid selection, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, pagination beyond the first 5, or authentication needs. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded with the main action and outcome, making it easy to understand at a glance. Every word serves a purpose, earning its place.

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 (search with filtering), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and result count but lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings. With output schema handling return values, the description meets a baseline but has clear gaps in 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions searching on a 'word/topic' (hinting at the query parameter) but doesn't explain the language parameter or provide any syntax, format, or constraints for either parameter. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond basic inference.

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 tool's purpose: searching Wikipedia pages on a word/topic and returning the first 5 results with information to help choose the most relevant one. It specifies the verb (search), resource (Wikipedia pages), and scope (first 5 results). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_wikipedia_page_info or get_wikipedia_page_summary, which appear to retrieve specific page details rather than search results.

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 usage for searching topics and selecting relevant results, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_wikipedia_page_summary or get_wikipedia_page_info. It mentions 'help choose the most relevant one,' suggesting it's for initial discovery, but doesn't clarify exclusions or prerequisites.

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