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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'Title discarded after the call' hints at statelessness but is vague and unhelpful. There is no disclosure of side effects, network behavior, or return format. For a check tool, a read-only note would be valuable context.

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 text is brief and front-loaded with the main function, but the second sentence is confusing and adds little value. It is concise without being clearly structured for an agent.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must explain how to invoke the tool and what to expect. It does neither. The missing connection between 'Wikipedia title' and the schema parameters makes the tool effectively unusable from this definition alone.

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?

The description refers to a 'Wikipedia title' but the input schema contains no 'title' property—only ref, url, city, feed, host, json, and path. The description fails to map the tool's purpose to any schema field, leaving the agent unable to determine what to pass. This is a critical mismatch between description and 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 states a specific action (check) and resource (Wikipedia title) with a clear verb. It is distinct from many sibling tools like 'fetch-status' or 'validate-json' in that it targets Wikipedia titles. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'ok' tools, so it barely misses a 5.

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 provides only a bare statement of function and no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many similar validation tools in the sibling list. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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