search_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: every word must match, common words are dropped, substrings count, results are ranked best-first, quoted text is exact, and results include matching lines with line numbers.

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 compact sentences with no filler; matching semantics and usage guidance are both packed in. Slightly better front-loading would put the "when to use" clause before the ranking rules, but nothing is wasted.

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 7-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return shape (pages with matching lines and line numbers). Gaps remain around pagination/limit behavior, folder scoping, and case sensitivity, which an agent would have to infer from defaults.

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 only 14% (just the workspace param), so the description must carry weight. It does explain query semantics (word matching, quoted/exact text) and what regex=true means, but it never mentions limit, folder, case_sensitive, or matches_per_page, leaving four parameters undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ("Search the wiki's paths, titles and text") and immediately scopes what is searched. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_pages, read_page and page_history, which enumerate or fetch rather than query by content.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use direction: "Search before answering about the workspace and before creating a page." It also hints at the alternative mode of use via regex=true. It does not name a competing sibling (e.g., read_page for known pages) or state exclusions, so it stops 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.