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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real value beyond that: result ordering (best match first), the presence of a `match` field explaining why each page was found, the fact that `files` are attached PDF/Word hits, and the token-visibility constraint. Only pagination/format details are left unstated.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: search scope first, then matching modes, then result semantics, then parameter options. Every clause carries information, though the telegraphic dash-heavy phrasing ('by words in any form and by meaning…, and literally') makes it slightly harder to parse than necessary.

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 does significant work by explaining `match` and `files` in the response and the default ordering. Combined with the fully described input schema and safety annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination/response-shape specifics are missing.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, including label semantics and the default/max limit. The description reinforces intent ('in your own words', optional space scoping) but adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 wiki pages) plus the exact scope: pages visible to this token, matched by free text, semantic meaning, literal body/title/label text, and even text inside attached SVG diagrams and PDF/Word files. This is clearly distinguishable from get_wiki_page (single fetch), list_wiki_spaces, and list_wiki_labels siblings.

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 concrete usage context: optional space key restriction, optional label restriction (with the with/without-text distinction), and the behavior when `text` is omitted (most recently updated first). It lacks an explicit 'use X instead when…' routing sentence against siblings like search_code or find_issues, but the conditions for the main modes are clear.

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