search_wiki

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it specifies that header matches are prioritized over content matches and that results include snippets. This gives the agent insight into result ordering and content, which annotations alone do not provide.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a relevant behavioral detail. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant repetition of schema information or annotations.

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 presence of an output schema and full param descriptions, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (search scope, prioritization, snippet return). It is sufficiently complete for a search tool, and the sibling tools provide additional context for disambiguation.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with all three parameters (query, fuzzy, limit) described in the schema itself. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema says, though it reinforces overall search behavior. This matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('wiki') and adds detail about what's searched ('section titles and content') and the return format ('matching section keys with snippets'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_wiki and get_wiki_section, which are non-search operations.

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?

The description implies the tool is used when you need to search by keyword, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The purpose is clear from context, yet there is no direct comparison to sibling list/browse/get tools, so guidance is only implied.

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