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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only discloses that the title is discarded, but omits what the return value is, whether the operation is read-only, network calls, or error handling. The claim that a title is involved is also inconsistent with the schema, which lacks a title parameter.

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 sentences, which is concise, but it is too sparse to be useful. It front-loads the purpose but fails to provide any structural guidance, such as expected input or output, making it minimal but not well-structured for agent use.

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 9 parameters, no required ones, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to invoke the tool, what it returns, or which parameter to use, making it nearly impossible for an agent to call correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds nothing about how parameters relate to the tool's purpose. It does not explain which of the 9 parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) is used to derive a Wikipedia title, leaving the agent with no semantic connection between the description and the schema.

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') and a specific resource ('a Wikipedia title'), making the tool's core function clear. However, it does not clarify how the title is provided, given the parameter list contains no 'title' parameter, so it's not fully self-contained.

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 indication of when to use this tool over siblings like 'browser-url-ok' or 'domain-shape'. It does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to guess.

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