mediawiki_search_and_read

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

Annotations confirm read-only and idempotent behavior. Description discloses the combined search-and-read action and return structure (full content of top results plus summaries). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured: single-line purpose, usage guidelines with clear 'USE WHEN' and 'NOT FOR', then compact parameter list. No extraneous information.

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 output schema exists, description still provides useful return summary. Combined with parameters and usage guidance, it fully equips the agent to use the tool correctly for wiki question answering.

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 has 100% coverage with default values and constraints (e.g., read_count default 1, max 5). Description repeats these details without adding new semantic context beyond what the schema provides. 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?

Description clearly states the tool 'Search wiki AND read the top result(s) in a single call', specifying verb, resource, and combined action. It distinguishes from siblings like mediawiki_get_page and mediawiki_search by providing explicit alternatives.

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 states when to use: 'User asks a question about wiki content. This is the fastest path.' And when not to: 'Known page titles (use mediawiki_get_page directly). Not for listing search results without reading (use mediawiki_search).' Provides clear context and named alternatives.

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