Search Wiki

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the write-to-index lag ('a new page can take seconds to appear in the index') and the trap that next_cursor stays set after an empty page. It does not cover auth or rate behavior, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, filters, pagination and a worked example. Every sentence carries information, though the example is slightly redundant with the schema's query field.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of documenting hit fields, pagination and index latency, which makes it nearly self-sufficient. The time-window 400 error constraint is only documented in the schema, so a small gap remains.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds value the schema does not: it enumerates what body.filters can narrow by (type, authors, cluster, created_at/modified_at, show_obsolete) and explains the next_cursor -> body.cursor round trip. It still omits the order_by/highlight semantics.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search over wiki pages and files') plus the scope of a single page of hits. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like wiki_pages_get or wiki_pages_revisions_list.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent downstream ('read it with pages_get') and gives clear pagination instructions including the stop condition. It does not name alternatives for other search needs or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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