Find entities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further and discloses the output shape ('plain text: the count, then up to 50 lines of [type] path - title, sorted by title') including a hard 50-line cap and sort order that appear nowhere in structured fields. That cap is exactly the kind of behavioral trait an agent needs in order to decide whether to narrow the query.

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 dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the resource definition, then matching rules, then return format, then routing. Parenthetical enumerations and separators keep it scannable and no sentence is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so fully: count line, per-line format, cap, and sort order. Combined with zero required parameters and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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%, so the schema baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it clarifies that name matches against the title OR path (the schema only says 'Entity name substring'), and it spells out the boolean combination and the list-everything default. Those are non-obvious semantics beyond the per-parameter descriptions.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Find entity pages') and enumerates the entity family (people, orgs, tools, libraries, APIs, projects, concepts). It also defines the underlying selection precisely as 'wiki pages with type: entity', which distinguishes it from the generic wiki_search sibling without needing its schema.

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 final sentence explicitly routes the agent elsewhere: 'Use wiki_query for free-text questions and wiki_category_browse for tags', naming both alternatives and the condition that selects each. The matching rules ('when both are given both must match; with neither, every entity is listed') further tell the agent how to compose a call.

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