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 burden; it discloses a genuine behavioral quirk (the built-in MediaWiki search is brittle on multi-word queries) and scopes the tool to wiki pages only. It does not mention pagination limits, ranking behavior, or auth needs, but the output schema is available to cover return values.

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 zero filler; the core action comes first and the routing note and caveat follow. 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?

With a full output schema and 100% parameter description coverage, the description only needs to add routing and behavioral context, and it does both. An agent has everything required to call the tool correctly and to know when to prefer corpus_search.

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% with both 'query' and 'limit' fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions searching 'by title or content,' which adds a small amount of meaning about how the query is matched, but no syntax or format guidance beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search wiki pages by title or content') and identifies the underlying mechanism (MediaWiki search). It also explicitly separates itself from the full-corpus sibling, so an agent can select it without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (corpus_search) and the condition that selects it ('For the full corpus (interviews, books, ...)'), plus a caveat that multi-word queries may return zero hits, which tells the agent when to retry or switch tools. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are present.

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