ask

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses that it reads the index, searches, reads relevant content, and synthesizes a cited answer. This indicates it is a compound read operation. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, rate limits, or error conditions, which would improve transparency further.

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 concise (three sentences for the main body, one for the arg) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guideline, and parameter. No unnecessary words.

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 one parameter and no annotations, the description adequately covers the core behavior and usage context. It mentions the output is a cited answer, and since an output schema exists, explicit return value details are not required. However, it does not address potential limitations or edge cases.

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 schema coverage is 0%—the schema only defines 'question' as a string with title 'Question'. The description's Args section adds 'The question to answer,' which provides a basic semantic but lacks detail on format, constraints, or examples. This partially compensates but remains minimal.

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 states it answers a natural-language question against the wiki and returns a cited answer. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_wiki by specifying it produces a finished answer, not raw pages.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when you want a finished answer rather than raw pages,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. Also explains the multi-step process (reads index, searches, reads, synthesizes), which helps the agent understand the expected behavior.

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