Search Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that — no ranking behavior, result shape, or pagination/limit interaction context. With an output schema present the return format needn't be spelled out, but 'full-text' semantics (matching, scoring) are left entirely opaque.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than maximal conciseness; a short clause on scope would still earn its place.

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 3-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema, the safety and parameter burden is carried by structured fields. What remains missing is the routing decision among many sibling listing/search tools, which is the one thing the description should have supplied.

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% with clear descriptions for limit, query, and namespace, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning — e.g., what namespace scope means for search reach or how limit interacts with ranking — beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb ('Full-text search') and resource ('across the wiki'), which is enough to distinguish a search operation from get_page_tool or list_pages_tool. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it lands at 4.

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?

There is no guidance on when to search versus browsing with list_pages_tool or list_recent_changes_tool, and no mention of when results are or aren't appropriate. The single sentence implies lookup usage but excludes nothing.

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