Search exact text

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds operationally important behavior: 200-match truncation, skipping files over 4 MiB, a 256 MiB per-call read cap, and a scan_incomplete signal for incomplete scans. Those limits directly affect result interpretation and are not available from the annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core matching rule, then return shape, then limits, then alternatives — a sound ordering with no filler. The middle section is a semicolon-dense run-on that could be split into bullets, which costs it the top score.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the full return contract ({term, matches, truncated, scan_incomplete, files_scanned, files_total, skipped_oversize_files}) and explains which fields indicate partial results. Nothing essential for correct invocation or result interpretation is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying case-insensitivity and line-by-line matching semantics for term, and by tying include_raw to the raw/sessions/ path. It stops short of elaborating further edge cases for term syntax, so not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the exact matching mechanism: 'case-insensitive substring match, line by line, over wiki/ pages'. It also scopes the raw/ extension to include_raw=true, so an agent can distinguish it from ranked-search siblings immediately.

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 routes the agent: 'Use wiki_query instead for ranked, question-style lookup' and 'open a hit with wiki_read_page'. This is a clear when-to-use plus named alternatives, the strongest form of guidance.

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