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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the title is 'discarded after the call,' indicating statelessness, but does not disclose what happens on success or failure, whether it performs network access, what the return format is, or any side effects. For a check tool, this is minimal and insufficient.

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 concise with two short sentences, but conciseness here veers into under-specification. It states the purpose but omits essential operational details. The structure is minimal with no front-loading of critical usage constraints or parameter relationships, making it less effective than a slightly longer, more structured description.

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?

This tool has 9 parameters, none required, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain how the parameters relate to the stated purpose of checking a Wikipedia title, nor does it describe expected return values or error conditions. Given the complexity implied by the parameter count, the description is woefully incomplete and leaves the agent without enough context to call the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description, earning a baseline of 3. However, the tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, and it does not clarify which parameter represents the 'title' to check. The parameters listed (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) are generic and do not intuitively map to a Wikipedia title, leaving ambiguity about how to actually invoke the tool.

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 the tool's core action: checking whether a Wikipedia title exists. It uses a specific verb ('check') and a specific resource ('Wikipedia title'), making the primary purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'browser-url-ok' or 'fetch-status' that might also verify existence, and the description is too terse to distinguish scenarios.

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 alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to other existence-checking tools in the sibling list. The description provides no context about the intended use case, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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