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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it is full-text search, token matching is most effective with exact terms, and the output is a set of ids intended for fetch. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and then adds only high-value usage details and output destination. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the output schema, annotations, and schema descriptions, nothing essential is missing. The description completes the picture by explaining what the tool searches, how to query effectively, and where the returned ids should be used next, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters, but the description adds practical meaning to the query parameter with concrete examples like field names, status codes, and paths. It also clarifies the output's purpose, while the limit and scope parameters remain clear from the schema defaults and enums.

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 states a specific verb and resource: full-text search over the Wikimedia Enterprise API documentation, covering guide sections, endpoints, and response models. It also explicitly says the tool returns ids to pass to fetch, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools fetch, get_endpoint, and list_endpoints.

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 description gives concrete usage guidance: exact tokens such as field names, status codes, and endpoint paths work best, and the returned ids are meant for a downstream fetch call. It does not explicitly list when not to use search versus get_endpoint or list_endpoints, so it stops short of a full exclusion-based 5.

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