search_wiki

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication that scope="private"/"all" requires authorization (only implied by the schema), no note on result ordering, truncation, or what a match looks like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the action, the corpus, and the input. Nothing redundant and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.

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 low-complexity, read-only search with a fully documented 4-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It is incomplete in that it never mentions the scope/PIN access dimension or how results relate to the other wiki-reading tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so scope semantics, the PIN requirement, and the limit default are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no query syntax, matching behavior, or scope guidance beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (Search) plus resource (Agentic Engineering Knowledge Base articles) and the query-driven nature of the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `query_wiki` or explain how it differs from `read_index`/`list_articles`, so an agent still has to guess which wiki-lookup tool fits.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. Given three sibling tools that also surface wiki content (query_wiki, read_index, list_articles), the absence of any routing hint is a real gap.

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