search_opensuse_wiki

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with this by saying 'Search' and 'Returns'. It adds useful context about the return format (titles, snippets, URLs) and provides an example query, which goes beyond the annotation. No additional behavioral traits like rate limits or prerequisites are mentioned, but for a simple read-only search tool this is adequate.

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 concise, with three sentences that are front-loaded with the [DISCOVERY] tag and a clear statement of purpose. Every sentence adds value: what it does, what it returns, how to use it, and an example. No fluff.

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?

Given the low complexity of the tool, good input schema, and readOnly annotation, the description adequately covers the return value, usage preference, and an example. There is no output schema, but the description explicitly states what the return contains, so the agent is fully informed.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (query and limit), with descriptions for each. The tool description adds an example query ('zypper') and clarifies the utility, but this is marginal enrichment rather than essential semantic information. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'openSUSE Wiki', and specifies that it returns a list of matching pages with titles, snippets, and URLs. The scope is distinct from sibling tools like search_obs, which focuses on the Open Build Service, making the 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?

Provides explicit guidance to prefer Wiki results over general web knowledge for SUSE-specific issues, which helps with selection. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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