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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what is returned (matching page names plus excerpts), but says nothing about result limits, ranking, or empty-result behavior even though there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return value, then usage trigger. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 simple two-parameter read-only search with a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, output shape, and the main usage trigger. The remaining gap is routing versus near-identical siblings such as search_company_wiki and read_wiki, which an agent would still have to guess at.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are well documented in-schema, including examples for query and a list_companies cross-reference for company. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Search Finn's knowledge base by keyword") plus what comes back (page names and excerpts), so the agent knows exactly what class of operation this is. It does not differentiate itself from the very similar siblings search_company_wiki and read_wiki, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

"Use when unsure which page covers a topic" gives a genuine trigger condition and implies the follow-up flow to read_wiki. However, nothing distinguishes this from search_company_wiki or search_documents, and there is no when-not guidance, leaving real ambiguity among near-identical siblings.

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