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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: an API key is required (Authorization: Bearer frsh_...) and results are scoped to the wiki owning that key. It does not say anything about result ordering, empty-result behavior, or the limit cap, which would have made it a 5.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the auth/scope constraint immediately after. Every clause carries information an agent could act on.

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?

With no output schema the description should say what a hit looks like or at least that results are page records; it does not. Auth and scoping are handled well, but the total absence of parameter explanation against 0% schema coverage leaves a real gap for a two-parameter search tool.

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 0%, so the description bears the burden of explaining 'query' and 'limit'. It says only that searching is full-text; it never mentions the limit parameter, its default of 10, or its 1-50 range, and never clarifies query syntax (phrase matching, operators, max length).

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: 'Full-text search of your Frosh wiki's pages.' That is concrete about the retrieval mechanism (full-text vs listing). It does not, however, distinguish this from the near-identical sibling 'search_pages' or from 'wiki_page_list'/'list_pages', so an agent choosing between them gets no help.

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 phrase 'full-text search' implies the usage context (keyword lookup rather than browsing), which is a reasonable implicit guideline. There are no explicit when-to-use/when-not rules and no mention of the competing siblings 'search_pages' or 'wiki_page_list', leaving the agent to infer routing.

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