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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), the description discloses the return shape (slug, title, spaceKey, spaceName, excerpt, status, updatedAt), that no UUIDs or full body come back, the default hybrid ranking, that webUrl requires normal workspace access and does not make the page public, and the required API scope `wiki:search:read`. That is exactly the additional context annotations cannot carry.

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 return shape, then alternatives and optional parameters — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is slightly dense and leans on all-caps emphasis and long parentheticals, but nearly every clause carries actionable information.

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 read-only search tool with six parameters, the description covers return contents, exclusions (no body, no UUIDs), ranking default, scoping, link semantics and auth scope, plus the handoff to wiki_get_page and the alternative wiki_retrieve. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or interpret results 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 q, mode, limit, spaceKey, account and workspace in detail. The description reiterates only spaceKey scoping and the hybrid default, adding little beyond what the schema states — baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Find wiki PAGES by title/keyword in the current workspace') and immediately enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what this returns versus a read tool. It also explicitly delineates itself from wiki_retrieve (quotable passages with citations) and wiki_get_page (full read), making sibling selection unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit routing: use this to LOCATE or LIST pages and then call wiki_get_page to read one; use wiki_retrieve when the goal is to answer a question from wiki content. The chaining guidance and the 'when-not' condition are both spelled out rather than implied.

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