search_wiki

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 the sources covered (Légifrance, PubMed, etc.) and the scope of topics, which adds some behavioral context. However, it does not mention any safety, auth, rate limits, or what happens on empty results, leaving gaps 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 a single paragraph of four sentences, each adding value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While slightly dense, it avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., list of articles, summaries, or links). It covers purpose, scope, and usage well but lacks details on output behavior, which is needed for a search tool to be fully actionable.

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%, but the description adds value by providing concrete examples for each parameter: query examples like 'CBD légal France', category value explanations (e.g., 'cannabinoid (CBD, CBG…)'), and default limit. This enriches the schema beyond the raw definitions.

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 clearly states the tool searches a specific wiki (Wiki LeBonFoin) and specifies the domain (French hemp). It uses a specific verb 'Rechercher' and resource 'Wiki LeBonFoin', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cbd_guide or cbd_market_data by focusing on factual, legal, and historical information.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Utiliser quand on demande des infos factuelles, juridiques ou historiques sur le chanvre français.' This provides clear context for usage but does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternative siblings, though the context implies it.

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