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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the title is discarded after the call, which suggests no persistence, but it omits the return format, network behavior, failure semantics, and any side effects. This is minimal disclosure.

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 two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted words. The discard note is a bit unusual but not redundant enough to lower the score further.

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 tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete: it does not define the return value, the required input, Wikipedia language/edition context, or the mismatch between the stated purpose and the actual schema.

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 schema contains seven properties, all with descriptions, but none of them represents a Wikipedia title; they reference Git refs, URLs, cities, RSS feeds, JSON, hosts, and paths. The description introduces a 'title' concept that maps to no parameter, so an agent cannot determine which field to populate.

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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('whether a Wikipedia title exists'), which distinguishes it from sibling URL/shape validators. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from alternatives or explain how the title is supplied, so it is not 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like status-catalog, domain-shape, or normalize-url. The only implied context is needing to verify a Wikipedia title, but no when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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