search_wiki

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), and the description adds value on top: what the results contain, that Forever-only content is indexed, and a citation obligation ('Always cite the link you used') that appears nowhere in structured fields. It stops short of describing result ordering, empty-result behavior, or any rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 core instruction is front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the example queries are short and illustrative rather than filler. The Args block is somewhat redundant stylistically but is justified by the 0% schema description coverage; the 'Forever-only content' aside is domain-specific but does convey a real scope fact.

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 read-only search tool with an output schema already present, nothing an agent needs is missing: when to search, what comes back, what to do next, and the citation requirement. Return-value detail is correctly left to the output schema rather than duplicated.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: the Args block explains 'query' as plain-words intent and supplies a constraint the schema lacks entirely — that 'limit' is bounded 1 to 10 with default 5. The schema only declares limit as an unbounded integer with default 5, so this is genuine added meaning; only minor gaps remain (no guidance on phrasing for better matches).

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search the Warcraft Wiki') and states the return shape (matching page titles, one-line snippets, links). It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling read_wiki_page by framing itself as the discovery step, so an agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states the triggering condition ('Use this when you do not know the exact page name') with concrete example queries, which by implication tells the agent when not to use it. It then names the alternative and the follow-up flow: 'call read_wiki_page with the title you want.'

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