search-page-by-prefix

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe read operations. The description adds critical behavioral details: only titles are returned, max 500 results, default 10, and flagging of additional matches. These go beyond annotations and clarify the response format and constraints.

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 concise with three sentences: purpose, return format, and limits/alternatives. All sentences are informative and free of redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary action and use case.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of a complete input schema with descriptions, the description provides all necessary context: what is returned (only titles), operational limits (up to 500, default 10), and behavior for excess results (flagged). It also mentions the alternative sibling tool, making it self-contained for most use cases.

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 descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context for 'limit' by stating max and default values and explains behavior when exceeded, which is not in the schema. However, 'prefix' and 'namespace' are not elaborated beyond the schema. Overall, the description adds meaningful value but is not exhaustive for all parameters.

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 it returns wiki page titles matching a prefix, explicitly designed for autocomplete and title lookup. It distinguishes from sibling 'search-page' by specifying that this tool only returns titles, making its purpose specific and well-differentiated.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (autocomplete, title lookup) and explicitly directs to 'search-page' for full-text content search. It also details limits (up to 500 results, default 10) and response behavior (flagging beyond cap), helping the agent decide between tools.

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