searchWikiPages

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: full-text content matching, optional cross-project scope, and the fact that it only returns wiki pages—without contradicting the annotations.

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; the primary action is front-loaded and the alternative routing is stated immediately after. Every sentence earns 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 read-only search tool with robust annotations and an output schema, the description covers what it searches, the optional scope, and how to follow up on results. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 25%, the description must compensate. It clarifies searchQuery as a full-text content query and projectId as an optional scope control ('across all accessible projects'), but limit and offset receive no added semantics beyond their standard names.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find project wiki pages') and identifies the query mechanism as full-text content search. It further scopes the tool to wiki content and explicitly names getWikiPage and searchAll in the next sentence, making differentiation from siblings clear.

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?

It gives explicit alternatives with conditions: use getWikiPage to read a selected result, and use searchAll when non-wiki content should also match. The 'optionally across all accessible projects' phrasing also clarifies project scoping behavior.

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