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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the title is discarded after the call, and 'check' implies a read-only operation, but it does not state the return format, error behavior, or whether a network request is made.

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 only two short sentences with no filler or repetition. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the discard note adds a meaningful behavioral detail without bloating the text.

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 output schema, no annotations, a large heterogeneous input schema, and a description that refers to a nonexistent 'title' parameter, the definition is not complete enough for correct invocation. It needs to identify the input field, state the return type, and cover side effects or exclusions.

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 eleven parameters, but none of them is named 'title', and the description does not map 'Wikipedia title' to any existing property. Despite detailed per-parameter descriptions, the agent cannot determine which field should receive the title, so the description actively fails to clarify the central input.

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 ('check'), a specific resource ('Wikipedia title'), and the expected outcome ('exists'). This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like normalize-url, validate-json, and domain-shape.

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 gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling lookup/validation tools such as browser-url-ok or fetch-status. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and purpose, with no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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