search_wiki

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral details: the identity-dependent search scope ('via user identity (UAT) ... via bot ...'), the viaUser field in the response, and the pagination mechanism (hasMore and nextOffset). This goes beyond a basic operation summary, though it could be further enriched with response format specifics.

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 efficient. It opens with a clear purpose statement, then provides the identity-specific behavior, and ends with pagination instructions. Each sentence adds necessary value with zero fluff, making it well-structured.

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 tool with only three parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: scope, identity-dependent behavior, response indicators (viaUser, hasMore), and pagination. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions pagination flow, but the schema already describes offset as 'Pagination offset from a previous nextOffset' and page_size with a default. No additional parameter-level nuance is provided.

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 'Search Wiki nodes by keyword', which is a specific verb+resource and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_docs and search_messages. The scope is unambiguous: it searches Wiki nodes only, not general documents or messages.

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 explains when the tool is appropriate: for searching Wiki nodes by keyword. It also provides context on how search scope varies depending on identity (UAT vs bot), which helps an agent decide if this tool fits the user's needs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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