Search Wiki

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

Even though annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the 50-result cap with no pagination, the excerpt's nature as a ~510-character fragment with no guarantee of containing query terms, and the client-side filter behavior. This goes far beyond the annotations and fully discloses the tool's quirks.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically covers limitations, usage flow, parameter caveats, and alternatives. No fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 tool has an output schema, the description need not explain return values. All critical operational details are covered: result count, excerpt limitations, client-side filtering, and proper combination of parameters. The tool is fully contextualized against its siblings and its own quirks, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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%, but the description adds strategic meaning beyond the schema: it explains why limit=50 is required when combining with client-side filters, how to phrase queries with double quotes, and the exact behavior of slug_prefix and result_type as client-side filters. This helps the agent choose parameter values correctly.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource+scope: 'Full-text search across the entire Yandex Wiki.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with page_get for reading and page_get_descendants for enumeration, making the tool's unique role unmistakable.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to DISCOVER pages, then call page_get with a result's slug to read full content.' It also states an alternative for enumeration: 'To enumerate a section (or the whole Wiki) rather than search it, use page_get_descendants.' This gives clear context and exclusions.

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