wiki_search

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 the tool returns 'complete page content (not fragments)' and explains the benefit for the LLM. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond just saying 'search', though it doesn't mention any side effects or rate limits, which are likely irrelevant for a search 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main function, followed by a concrete use case. Every phrase adds value and there is no redundancy or 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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description explains what is returned: 'complete page content (not fragments)' with wikilinks and class context. It also covers the search scope. For a simple search tool with three well-documented parameters, this is sufficient and complete.

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 doesn't add additional meaning about the parameters; it only mentions the search behavior and return type, not parameter details like query syntax or category filtering.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search across all Isaac API wiki pages.' It clearly states the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like wiki_read and wiki_list by focusing on search across all pages.

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 clear context: 'Use this to find relevant API classes, enums, or tutorials.' It implies when to use search versus reading or listing pages, but doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, so it's not a full 5.

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