Wikipedia: Multi-Language Summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'langlinks to map titles accurately' which adds useful context about title resolution behavior, but doesn't describe error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or what happens when languages aren't available. For a 3-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. First sentence states core functionality, second adds important implementation detail about title mapping. Every word earns its place, and the description is appropriately front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the return format (what 'summaries' look like), error conditions, parameter interactions, or practical usage examples. The langlinks mention is helpful but doesn't compensate for the overall lack of operational 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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'term' and implies language parameters through 'multiple languages' and 'langlinks', but doesn't explain what 'baseLang' and 'langs' represent, their format (language codes), or how they interact. It adds minimal semantic value beyond what can be inferred from parameter names.

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 specific action ('Retrieves Wikipedia summaries') and resource ('for a given term'), with explicit scope ('in multiple languages'). It distinguishes from sibling 'wiki_get' by specifying multi-language capability and mentioning 'langlinks' for cross-language title mapping.

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 context through 'multi-language' and 'langlinks' terminology, suggesting this is for cross-lingual Wikipedia lookups. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'wiki_get' or 'search_web', nor does it provide exclusion criteria or comparative guidance.

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