get_summaries

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

The description discloses that the tool returns compact summaries, supports multiple titles, and is scoped to Wikipedia page titles. Since annotations already mark it as readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent, this added context is sufficient for a low-risk read operation.

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 one short sentence with no filler, redundant phrasing, or repetition of structured fields. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose and key constraints.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with output-schema coverage, the description gives enough context to understand the request and likely response shape. It does not mention edge cases like nonexistent titles or ordering, but those are not essential given annotations and simple scope.

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?

Although the schema provides no property descriptions, the tool description clarifies that the titles array must contain 'Wikipedia page titles' and says they can be one or more. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare 'Titles' label 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch compact summaries' for 'one or more Wikipedia page titles.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_page, get_section, and get_toc by focusing on summaries rather than full page content, sections, or table of contents.

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?

Use is implied: the tool should be used when the caller wants compact summaries of Wikipedia pages. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_page for full page content or get_section for sections, so agents must infer the boundary without direct guidance.

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