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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It reveals the search scope (pages, topics, replies) and the query concept, but does not disclose matching behavior, result shape, or any side effects. For a read-only search action this is acceptable but still leaves some traits undisclosed.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, no filler. Maximally efficient for the information conveyed.

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 single-parameter search tool, the description covers the action, the target resources, and the input semantics. The lack of output/result details is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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?

The schema only defines 'query' as a string with length limits; the description adds that it is a 'term' searched across specific content typeshi, going beyond the bare schema despite the 0% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('search') and names the exact resources searched ('wiki pages, forum topics, and replies'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also inherently distinguishes itself from sibling read/list tools like get_page or recent_changes.

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 clearly implies this is the tool for content search across three resource types, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over siblings (e.g., list_pages) or any exclusions. Context is sufficient but not explicit.

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