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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the search is substring-based, deterministic, returns up to 'limit' hits with a snippet window, and notes the snippet is safe for citation preview. It doesn't cover error handling or pagination beyond the limit, but the provided behavioral details are solid.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. The purpose is stated first, followed by constraints and the alternative guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has an output schema, and the description explains the return format and snippet semantics. It also covers usage guidance and parameter constraints. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing for a search tool with two parameters.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the 'limit' parameter (default 20, max 50) and implicitly defines 'query' as the substring to search. It also details the output fields (category, name, title, snippet), exceeding schema information.

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 explicitly states it performs substring search across wiki pages and names the sibling tool 'query' as the alternative for semantic questions. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings and gives a specific verb and resource.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Cheap and deterministic — no embedding required') and explicitly directs users to prefer 'query' for natural-language questions, giving both an exclusion and an alternative.

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