Search the One Piece Wiki

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond those annotations by explaining that large articles are split into subpages and those subpages appear in search results, which is useful for anticipating result types.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The subpage detail earns its place because it materially affects what results will look like.

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?

The description is adequate for invoking the tool with query and limit, and the subpage behavior is a useful hint about results. However, there is no output schema and the description does not state what the returned results contain (e.g., article titles, snippets, pagination), leaving some ambiguity for an agent interpreting the response.

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 schema documents query with examples and shows limit's type/default/min/max, but only 50% of parameters have semantic descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, neither explaining how query is matched nor describing what limit controls in terms of result count.

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 states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('One Piece Wiki articles'), and explicitly notes that full-text search includes subpages. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page or get_page_sections, which retrieve specific pages rather than performing full-text search.

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 implies usage: an agent should use this tool when it needs to find articles by free-text terms, as opposed to retrieving a known page. However, it never explicitly names alternative tools or states when not to use it, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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