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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: word-based case-insensitive matching, ranking order, and the handoff field `page` for the follow-up fetch. It stops short of saying how many results exist or how paging beyond max_results works.

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 the core action, then matching/ranking semantics, then the routing rule. No filler and no repetition of schema fields.

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 two-parameter, read-only search tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, matching behavior, result handoff and the sibling boundary. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether results are truncated or ordered deterministically beyond the stated ranking.

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 both parameters are already documented with examples. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how the `query` string is matched (word-level, case-insensitive) and ranked, which directly informs query formulation.

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 the Nightbreak wiki for relevant pages and snippets") and even discloses the ranking basis (title, page name, body). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling search_plugin_source, which it names explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ("high-level docs, examples, and tutorials") and a when-not with the named alternative ("not for symbol verification — use search_plugin_source"). It also routes the follow-up step by telling the agent to pass the `page` value to fetch_wiki_page.

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