List search engines

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context about how the default search index only covers titles and descriptions, and that page contents may be unsearchable until an engine is configured and rebuilt. This goes beyond what annotations provide and warns the agent about a real limitation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a valuable caveat. No filler or repetition; every clause contributes meaning.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent why the tool matters and how it affects interpretation of search results. It does not describe the exact return shape, but no output schema exists and the semantics are simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is effectively 100% by default. The description correctly does not waste space on parameters, so the baseline of 4 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?

The description identifies the subject ('Which search engine this wiki uses') and connects it to the related search_pages tool, making it clear this is about the wiki's search backend. It is not a tautology and adds useful context, though it does not explicitly say 'list' or describe the exact set of returned engines.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: before trusting search_pages results. It explains the default 'Database - Basic' limitation and the need for a real engine and rebuilt index, which helps an agent decide whether to rely on search results. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the context is strong.

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