wiki_infobox

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the output is structured key/value fields, which is helpful. However, it doesn't state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any limitations. With no annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate as it provides core behavior but lacks depth.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and value. It is front-loaded with the core function and ends with a compelling reason to use it. No unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema) and the rich set of sibling tools, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool returns and hints at when to prefer it over others ('most reliable for verification'). Completeness is adequate for this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (single required parameter 'title' with a clear description). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Exact page title, e.g. 'Sturgeon''. Baseline of 3 is warranted as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a page's infobox as structured key/value fields, referencing common fields like price/season/location. It distinguishes from siblings by calling it the 'most reliable surface for verification', implying use for fact-checking. However, it doesn't explicitly state the verb (e.g., 'get' or 'retrieve').

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 verification (most reliable surface) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as 'wiki_page' for full content or 'wiki_search' for finding pages, so usage context is only implied.

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