search_wiki

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no pagination behavior, result ordering, or scope limits.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the enum packed into a parenthetical rather than prose. No filler, though the enum inline does make the sentence dense.

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?

With four parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers kind and category but omits limit and any statement about result shape or size. Adequate to start, but gaps remain that the schema does not fill.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It partially does: it enumerates the six valid `kind` values and marks `category` as optional, and implies query accepts symbols/extensions. It says nothing about `limit` (default 12) or the defaults for `kind`/`category`.

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?

Specific verb (search) plus the resource scope implied by the tool name, and it enumerates the six valid `kind` values, which is more than most siblings offer. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the generic sibling `search`, so an agent must infer which corpus each targets.

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 note that 'symbols and extensions work as queries' is an implicit usage hint about acceptable query forms. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative `search` tool or when to prefer it over wiki-specific retrieval.

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