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

With no annotations, the description adds useful context about gateway credentials, charges, and authorization. However, it does not clarify rate-limit behavior, how missing English links are handled, or whether redirects/normalization occur.

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?

It is two sentences with the core operation front-loaded and no wasted wording. The second sentence adds relevant gateway context without distracting from the tool's purpose.

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 simple read-only lookup with fully documented fixed parameters, the description covers the result (English title and URL) and gateway authorization context. It could mention behavior when no English equivalent exists, but otherwise it is sufficient.

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%, and the schema fully describes the seven parameters, including the fixed enum values. The description only reinforces that the titles parameter is a Chinese Wikipedia article title, adding no substantial meaning beyond 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 uses a specific verb and resource: find the English Wikipedia title and URL for a known Chinese Wikipedia article. It clearly distinguishes this lookup operation from search or article-intro siblings by naming the exact transformation and output.

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 phrase 'for a known Chinese Wikipedia article' gives a clear usage condition: the caller must already have the Chinese title. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as using a search tool first, so it stops short of full when-to-use guidance.

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