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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only pages visible to the token are searched (auth context), that matching includes body and SVG labels, and that results are sorted most-recently-updated first. It doesn't mention return format or pagination beyond the limit parameter, but covers key behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the optional restriction and sorting behavior. No wasted words, perfectly scannable for an agent.

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 description covers search scope, optional space filter, and sorting, which is adequate for a search tool. However, with no output schema, it doesn't indicate what the result list contains (e.g., page IDs, titles, summaries) or whether pagination is handled beyond the limit parameter. This leaves a minor gap in expected return format.

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 the parameter descriptions in the schema already explain text, limit, and spaceKey in detail. The tool description essentially repeats the same information, adding only the sorting note (which is not a parameter). Thus it adds no meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'wiki pages', with specific scope: free text matched in title, body, and SVG labels, and optional space restriction. It distinguishes from siblings like get_wiki_page (retrieve specific) and list_wiki_spaces (list spaces) by emphasizing the free-text search behavior.

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 gives context on when to use: when you need to find pages by text, optionally within a space. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list and the clear search purpose imply when this tool is appropriate. It omits explicit 'when not to use' but the free-text scope is evident.

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