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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations it discloses the default of 5 chunks, a fail-open fallback to keyword retrieval if the embedding provider is down, that webUrl still requires normal workspace access and does not publish the page, and the required API-key scope `wiki:search:read`. That is real operating context an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the sibling contrast in the first two sentences, with constraints (limit default, fail-open, webUrl, scope) layered after. It is dense and the enumeration of result fields is long, but with no output schema those fields earn their place.

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, the description enumerates the return shape (pageSlug, pageTitle, spaceKey, chunkText, score 0..1, status, updatedAt, webUrl), covers auth scoping, degradation behavior, and when not to use it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret this correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents query, limit, spaceKey, account and workspace. The description mainly reinforces the limit default and adds the practical cue 'pass limit to widen,' which is useful but largely restates the schema's own default.

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?

States a specific verb+resource with precise scope: 'Search the wiki by MEANING and get back the most relevant PASSAGES (chunks) with citations and relevance scores.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling page finder wiki_search, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives both directions: 'Use this to GROUND or ANSWER a question from wiki content' and the exclusion 'NOT a page finder — to merely LOCATE or LIST pages by title/keyword use wiki_search.' The alternative tool and the condition that selects it are named explicitly.

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