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

Annotations only declare the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false); the description goes well beyond by disclosing the matching semantics (literal match with English full-text fallback, stemming, stopword removal), the explicit non-semantic limitation, the ranking order, and the pagination contract (page 1/size 10, max 50, page while hasMore). None of this is recoverable from the annotations or schema.

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 the core when-to-use and sibling routing, with technical detail and defaults pushed to the back. It is dense but nearly every clause earns its place; the only mild waste is restating the page/pageSize defaults that the schema already carries.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the return-value burden by describing each row ('snippet' windowed on the match, the 'path' get_wiki_page takes, and the 'markdown' URL). Combined with the ranking rules, fallback behavior and pagination, an agent has everything needed to call and consume the result.

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 and 'page'/'pageSize' defaults are already documented. The description adds genuine meaning by tying them together into a paging loop driven by 'hasMore' and by describing the query field's behavior (keywords, phrases, whole questions, full-text fallback) rather than just restating 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Keyword search across the AcuiQ reference wiki') and immediately scopes it as the tool for topic/question queries with no page path. It explicitly contrasts itself with get_wiki_page, so an agent can differentiate it from siblings 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?

States when to use it ('when you have a topic or a question ... and no page path') and names the alternative with its own condition ('Use get_wiki_page instead when you already have a path, or to see every page by section'). This is explicit when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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