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

The description adds one behavioral note, 'Title discarded after the call,' which is useful but insufficient. It does not disclose the return value, error behavior, or whether a network request is made, and the schema's parameter descriptions repeatedly mention discarding inputs, which creates confusion about what the tool actually does with a title.

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 extremely short, with the purpose in the first sentence and a side-effect note in the second. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, but it sacrifices necessary information for brevity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mismatched input schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits the crucial mapping between the title concept and the actual parameters, as well as any detail about expected output or failure modes, leaving an agent with no reliable way to invoke the tool.

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 identifies which schema property corresponds to the Wikipedia title, and the schema contains no 'title' parameter—instead listing ref, url, city, feed, host, json, and path with unrelated descriptions. The agent cannot determine how to provide the required input, making the tool effectively uncallable from the description and schema alone.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Check whether a Wikipedia title exists.' It conveys the primary purpose unambiguously, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling '-ok' tools like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape—its scope is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as fetch-status or validate-json. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.

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