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

The description adds a behavioral note—'Title discarded after the call'—which informs the agent that the input is not retained. Since no annotations are provided, this modest disclosure is useful, but it omits other behaviors such as whether network access is required or what happens on invalid input.

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 concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. Both sentences earn their place, though the second sentence is a minor detail rather than essential usage information.

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?

The description is far from complete for an effective tool call. It does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean), fails to align with the input schema, and provides no usage context or fallback guidance. The mismatch between described functionality and schema makes the tool effectively unusable without additional information.

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' parameter, but the input schema contains no such property—instead offering ref, url, city, feed, host, json, and path, none of which clearly map to a Wikipedia title. This creates a severe mismatch, and the description does nothing to resolve which parameter should carry the title, leaving the agent unable to invoke the tool correctly.

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 action—checking whether a Wikipedia title exists—with a specific resource (Wikipedia title). However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like browser-url-ok or file-path-ok, which also perform existence or shape checks, so it earns a 4 rather than 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. An agent has to infer entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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