Radix Wiki

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

Goes well beyond the sparse annotations by disclosing authentication requirements, the need for a challenge-sign-verify flow, balance-gated paths, and contribution points. This gives the agent actionable behavioral knowledge that is not present in the schema or annotations.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, auth prerequisite, tagPath prerequisite, balance gating, and incentive.

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 6-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the most critical operational context: auth, prerequisites, and special constraints. It does not describe the success response or error format, but the schema already handles metadata error details, and the missing pieces are minor for invocation.

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% and the schema already documents all parameters richly. The description adds extra semantic value for tagPath by explaining that it must come from get_categories and that some paths are balance-gated, which is information the schema does not convey.

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: 'Create a new Radix Wiki page.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling edit_page, and the scope of the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Provides concrete usage context: a required ROLA bearer token, a link to the auth flow, and an explicit prerequisite ('Call get_categories first for a valid tagPath'). It does not explicitly name edit_page as the alternative for existing pages, but the create-versus-edit distinction is clear enough.

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

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

Annotations already signal a destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: server-side version bump and diff computation, rejection of locked/author-only pages, contribution-point side effects, and required bearer token. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent anticipate consequences.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, auth, workflow, constraints, and side effects. No filler or redundant restatement of schema details, and the key operational instruction is front-loaded.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers auth, prerequisite fetch, payload shape, server-side behavior, rejection cases, and side effects. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the input schema already documents each parameter well. The description restates the 'full revised block array' requirement and adds server-side behavior, but adds little purely parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 states a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('existing Radix Wiki page'), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from create_page. It also clarifies the edit is a full-block replacement, which defines the core operation precisely.

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 gives an explicit workflow: fetch with get_page first, then send the full revised block array. It also notes auth requirements and rejection conditions. It stops short of explicitly saying 'use create_page for new pages,' but the 'existing' phrasing makes the intended scope clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, and the description adds performance context: it costs one call and a few kilobytes. It also discloses the response shape (tree with path, name, description, page count), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences deliver the core definition, the use-case guidance, and the cost profile without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important identifying information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, why it is useful, and how it relates to sibling tools. An agent can confidently decide to call it and understand the result shape.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics the description must compensate for. The description adds relevant context about what the returned data enables, but there is nothing to add about parameters themselves. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 identifies the tool as returning the wiki tag hierarchy as a tree, with each node containing specific fields. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by positioning it as both the cheapest orientation method and the only way to find a valid tagPath before create_page. This is far beyond a vague or tautological statement.

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 gives explicit use guidance: use it to orient before searching, use it to find a valid tagPath before create_page, and prefer it to listing pages to see what exists. This clearly tells an agent when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_pages or search_wiki.

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

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

With annotations providing no safety hints and all flags false, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses single-use behavior, a 5-minute expiry, that the response specifies the exact signing recipe, and that the tool never custodies keys. This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey and does not contradict them.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: the role in the flow, the expiry and response contents, and the key ownership guarantee.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the response contains, why the challenge is needed, the expiry constraint, and the security context around key custody. An agent knows exactly what to expect and how to proceed after invocation.

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 has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly states 'Takes no parameters,' confirming there is no required input, which is fully consistent with the empty schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: obtaining a single-use ROLA challenge as 'Step 1 of writing to the wiki.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining exactly what the response contains (the recipe for signing with an Ed25519 key) and what it does not do ('nothing here custodies anything').

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 frames this as the first step in an authentication flow for writing to the wiki, which implies when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'Step 1' framing and mention of your own key give enough contextual guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and closed-world hints, and the description adds significant context beyond that: plain-text format, bulk-ingestion intent, corpus size warning, page-aligned truncation, and honest resume fields (truncated, omittedPages, nextSkip). The description is consistent with annotations and discloses behavior not inferable from schema or hints.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, preflight warning, pull strategy, truncation protocol, and alternative access. It is front-loaded with the core use case and uses formatting (PREFLIGHT FIRST, backticks) to make the critical information scannable.

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 read-only bulk retrieval tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers invocation order, parameter limits, pagination and truncation semantics, and even the alternate ETag-served endpoint. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: it explains the preflight-first ordering for sizeOnly, provides the maxChars default and ceiling, gives a concrete tagPath example, and introduces the skip=nextSkip pagination contract. This materially improves an agent's ability to use the parameters correctly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns every article as one plain-text document for bulk ingestion. It explicitly contrasts with reading, search, and list tools, distinguishing itself from siblings like get_page, list_pages, and search_wiki.

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 provides explicit guidance: preflight with sizeOnly=true, pull with maxChars, narrow with tagPath, resume with skip=nextSkip, and use search/list first for questions. It also names an alternative URL access method, leaving no ambiguity about when and how to use the tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds useful output context by explaining the kanban grouping and card attributes. It does not disclose additional operational behaviors such as default filtering, pagination, or response shape, but this is acceptable for a simple read-only board tool.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, starting with the tool's core purpose. It packs the status pipeline, card fields, and intended use into two sentences with no redundant phrasing.

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 low-complexity, read-only filterable board with fully documented optional parameters, the description sufficiently characterizes what the tool returns and when to use it. Since there is no output schema, the description's detail about status columns and card fields helps fill that gap, though minor details like filter interaction are not addressed.

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 the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds minor semantic value by implying that category and workingGroup are attributes of the cards, but it does not provide any additional parameter syntax, defaults, or combination rules.

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 identifies a specific read-only retrieval: the RADIX Wiki Ideas Pipeline kanban. It details the resource's contents (community proposals and DAO tasks) and its structure (status columns, card fields), which also distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page or get_full_corpus.

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 provides an explicit intended use: 'Use this to follow DAO / project progress.' This makes the primary context clear, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and idempotent; the description adds meaningful behavioral context on top, such as the fact that a wrong pair returns tools that find the right page rather than an empty result, and that the tool returns the full content plus metadata. This helps set agent expectations beyond the structured hints.

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 sentences carry dense, relevant information with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and return contents, the second clarifies input constraints, and the third points to alternatives. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 is complete for a read-only, single-page retrieval tool. It covers what is returned, how to identify the page, what kind of input is invalid, how errors behave, and which sibling tools or URL forms to use for different goals. No output schema exists, but the return contents are enumerated sufficiently.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between parameters: you can pass either the single path or the tagPath/slug pair, and explicitly warns against non-supported forms like URLs or titles. This goes beyond the individual property descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('Read one page') and names the exact resource and the data returned: extracted text, version number, update date, and declared metadata. It also distinguishes itself from get_full_corpus and the markdown-via-URL path, so an agent can identify which tool fits.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('for the whole article set at once use get_full_corpus') and when to use a different mechanism ('for a page as markdown fetch its URL with .md appended'). It also clarifies what forms of input are acceptable and what is not accepted: 'not a URL and not a title'.

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

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the row shape ('Same row shape as list_pages'), ordering ('newest first'), and hard limits (max 30 days, max 50 rows). This is more behavioral detail than typical and helps the agent predict results accurately.

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 front-load the core behavior and then add purpose, output compatibility, and limits. Every phrase earns its place without repetition or filler.

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 purpose, usage context, limits, ordering, and row shape in a compact form. Combined with full parameter schema coverage and readOnly/idempotent annotations, nothing important is missing for a correct call.

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 the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the 30-day and 50-row caps but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: pages edited within last N days, newest first. It distinguishes itself from list_pages by framing itself as the polling tool for watching the wiki rather than reading it.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('what to poll when you are watching the wiki') and names the alternative for older data ('for anything older, list_pages sorted by updatedAt'). This gives the agent clear routing guidance with no inference needed.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description supplements this with meaningful behavior: the default sort order (newest first), the exact row fields, the pagination envelope fields, and how tagPath scoping behaves. No contradiction exists between description and annotations.

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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides return-shape and scoping details, then closes with a practical sorting tip. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately documents the return shape: same rows as search_wiki plus a pagination envelope with totalPages, hasMore, and nextPage. It covers filtering, sorting, and pagination context well enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional lookup.

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 covers all four parameters (100%), so the baseline is solid. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that tagPath values should come from get_categories, that omitting tagPath walks the whole wiki, and that sort=title produces an A-Z listing. Page and pageSize are not elaborated further, but their schema defaults are sufficient.

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 and resource: browsing the wiki by tag path, listing every page under a branch. It distinguishes itself from search_wiki by contrasting tag-path browsing with keyword browsing and even references the shared row format with search_wiki.

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 explicitly frames when to use this tool: when browsing by tag path rather than keyword. It also gives concrete guidance to pass a tagPath from get_categories to stay inside a branch, omit tagPath for the whole wiki, and use title sort for an A-Z pass, which effectively routes an agent to the right use case.

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

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the token lifetime is 7 days, the proof verification mirrors the human wallet flow, and the token is carried via HTTP header rather than tool arguments. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful operational detail for an auth tool.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and token duration, and the second explains exactly how to use the result. Every clause earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 5-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the auth workflow, token lifetime, and token usage. The only noticeable gap is that it does not describe the exact response shape beyond 'returned token', which could require the agent to infer the token field name.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning; 'signed ROLA proof' loosely contextualizes signature/publicKey, but it does not compensate beyond the schema baseline.

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 specific action: exchanging a signed ROLA proof for a 7-day Bearer token. It identifies the tool as 'Step 2' in an authentication flow, distinguishing it from get_challenge (step 1) and from content-oriented siblings like create_page and edit_page.

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 gives clear context by labeling the tool 'Step 2' and by explaining that the returned token must be sent as an Authorization header on later create_page/edit_page calls. It does not explicitly name get_challenge as the required predecessor or state exclusions, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it discloses the return shape (title, URL, tagPath, slug, snippet, last-updated date) and explains that tagPath and slug are the identifiers other read tools accept. This gives the agent practical expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded. The first clause states the core purpose, the second sentence defines the return contract, and the third covers pagination and the primary alternative. Every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the main operational details: result fields, identifying fields for downstream read calls, narrowing, pagination, and when to choose get_categories instead. It does not describe edge cases like empty results or invalid tagPath, but these are secondary for correct invocation.

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 the schema fully documents query, tagPath, page, and pageSize. The description adds mild usage nuance, such as using tagPath to narrow common terms and paginating, but it does not substantially add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: keyword search across wiki titles and page text. It also explicitly frames itself as 'the first call when you know what you are looking for,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_categories and get_full_corpus.

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 clear when-to-use guidance ('the first call when you know what you are looking for'), tells users to call get_categories first when they do not yet know what exists, and offers concrete tactics like narrowing with tagPath for common terms and paginating with page/pageSize. This explicitly routes the agent between alternatives.

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