Search pages

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 is a search operation, lists the returned fields, and signals a read-only, non-destructive action. It omits auth/rate-limit details, but these are not essential for a simple query 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?

Two tight sentences: the first states the operation, scope, and return fields; the second gives the follow-up action. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it covers what is searched, what is returned, the wiki scope, and how to use the result with get_page.

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 reinforces that query searches names, titles, and content, but adds no parameter details beyond the schema's type, constraints, and defaults.

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 ('full-text search'), a clear resource ('page names, titles and content of the configured wiki'), and the returned hit fields. This distinguishes it from read-single-page (get_page) and listing tools.

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 makes the operation and result shape clear, and explicitly tells the agent to pass the returned pageRef to get_page to read a page. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over list_pages_in_space, but the 'full-text' scope implies the distinction.

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