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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one behavioral trait ('Title discarded after the call') and implies a read-only existence check, but it does not state response semantics, failure behavior, or side effects of the seven accepted parameters.

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, with the main purpose front-loaded and no wasted verbiage. The second sentence is terse but unclear; it could be more explicit about what 'Title' refers to given the schema.

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 should specify how to pass the title and what response indicates existence. It does neither, and the schema's unrelated parameters actively confuse rather than complete the picture.

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 references a 'title' that does not exist in the input schema; the seven actual parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) are described in the schema but none captures a Wikipedia title. The description adds no parameter meaning, and the schema descriptions point to unrelated behaviors, making correct invocation impossible to determine.

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: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling shape-checkers like file-path-ok or browser-url-ok. However, the second sentence 'Title discarded after the call' introduces ambiguity by naming 'Title' as though it were an input, while the schema contains no title parameter.

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 main clause implies the use case: invoke this tool when an existence check for a Wikipedia title is needed. It provides no explicit when-not guidance and does not reference alternative tools such as web-fetch or search-query-len.

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