wiki_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful output context ('returns ranked matches with snippets'), but says nothing about result ordering logic, pagination behavior tied to the limit parameter, or auth requirements for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences with no filler, front-loading the search scope before the return shape. Every clause 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does at least sketch the return shape, but leaves limit semantics, ranking behavior, and the page_type filter's role unexplained. It is minimally adequate for a simple read-only search tool but not 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 only 33% (page_type is the sole documented parameter), so the description must compensate for query and limit — and it does not. It only loosely implies that query is matched across the listed fields, with no word about the default limit of 8 or result-count semantics.

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 (search) and resource (wiki), and enumerates the fields searched (titles, tags, summaries, headings, bodies), which is more precise than the name alone. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like wiki_read_page or wiki_recent, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives such as wiki_list_pages or wiki_recent for browsing instead of searching. The agent must infer from the word 'search' that this is the tool for keyword lookup when the target page is unknown.

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