wikidata_entity_enrichment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuinely useful behavioral context — per-result billing to the caller's own Apify account (~$0.001/result) and the 'one row per entity' output shape — but it omits auth/credential requirements, rate limits, and failure behavior on unresolved names.

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, front-loaded with the resolution capability and output contents before the billing note. Efficient and readable, with no padding or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately lists the return contents (facts, identifiers, social/media links, one row per entity) and notes the billing model. For a read-only enrichment tool this is nearly complete, though credential expectations for the Apify account are unstated.

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 the schema already documents entities, language, and entityType with examples and enum meanings. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema supplies, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource ('resolves a QID, company name, or Wikipedia URL to its Wikidata item') and enumerates the returned fact categories, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like company_360, which also appears to produce company enrichment.

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 explains what inputs are accepted but never states when to choose this tool over the alternatives (company_360, yc_companies_scraper, etc.), nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the billing note. Usage is only weakly implied by the input-type enumeration.

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