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.