search_archwiki

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a list of matching pages with titles, snippets, and URLs, which adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides sufficient behavioral context.

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 very concise, with only three sentences. It front-loads the action verb 'Search' and includes a tagged [DISCOVERY] marker. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple nature of a search tool and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (titles, snippets, URLs). It could mention pagination or error handling, but for a discovery tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Both parameters (query, limit) are fully described in the input schema with descriptions. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, but the schema coverage is 100%, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool searches the Arch Wiki for documentation, returns matching pages with titles, snippets, and URLs. It distinguishes itself from general web knowledge and includes a concrete example, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 advises preferring Wiki results over general web knowledge for Arch-specific issues and provides an example. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like search_aur, the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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