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

The phrase 'Title discarded after the call' adds a small behavioral note, but no annotations exist to cover side effects, network access, return behavior, or failure modes. For a tool that checks external Wikipedia titles, much more behavioral disclosure is needed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler. The description is very concise and easy to parse, even though it is incomplete in other dimensions.

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 eight parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a description that does not map input to purpose, an agent cannot safely or correctly invoke this tool. The description does not explain what the result looks like, what the parameters mean for this tool, or what errors may occur.

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 never connects the 'Wikipedia title' to any of the eight input schema properties. None of the schema parameters is named 'title' or described as a Wikipedia title, so an agent cannot determine how to pass the required input. The schema descriptions cover their own fields but do not support the tool's stated purpose.

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: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like domain-shape, validate-json, or normalize-url, all of which target different objects.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of related tools. The purpose is clear, but the description leaves the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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