search_wiki

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only search operation and provides example queries, but it does not disclose any permission requirements, behavior on empty results, or other side effects. The safety profile is inferred from the verb 'Busca' rather than explicitly stated.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, then usage examples, then parameter definitions. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the most critical information first.

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 simple search tool with an output schema (which presumably covers return structure), the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. It does not mention search behavior details (e.g., full-text vs title-only, sorting), but these are not essential for correct invocation. The overall context is sufficient.

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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions, so the tool description fully compensates. It explains 'query' with examples ('fighting set', 'fisherman') and 'limit' with a range (1-20), adding meaningful constraints beyond the schema's default value and type. This is exactly what the dimension rewards.

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's function with a specific verb ('Busca' = search) and resource ('artículos en la Wiki de Tenarius RO'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the wiki's scope (private server content) and gives concrete examples (Oficios, Sets, Tenarius Coin), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 says 'Usar para' (use for) and lists relevant content types, giving clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly contrast with alternative search tools like search_ro_reference or search_ro_web, which would have strengthened the guidance.

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