search-page

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

Annotations declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent hints, and non-destructive. Description adds behavior beyond annotations: accepts up to 100 matches (default 10), flags additional matches in response, and suggests narrowing queries. No contradiction.

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 sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and return fields. Second sentence adds usage nuance (cap, default, flag, suggestion). Front-loaded with key information.

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?

No output schema, but description enumerates return fields (snippet, size, timestamp) and behavioral details (cap, flag). Parameter coverage is complete. Sufficient for an agent to understand usage, though could mention pagination or response structure more explicitly.

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 baseline 3. Description adds value by specifying the limit default (10), the maximum cap (100), and explaining that extra matches are flagged and query narrowing is needed—details beyond the schema's simple min/max constraints.

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 wiki page titles and content (full-text) and returns matching pages with snippet, size, timestamp. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search-page-by-prefix' by explicitly mentioning its full-text scope versus title prefix lookup.

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 advises when to use this tool (full-text search) and when to use the alternative (title-prefix lookup via search-page-by-prefix). It also mentions the match cap and strategy to narrow queries for more results. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but provides sufficient guidance.

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