mediawiki_search_and_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing the combined action (search+read), the single-call optimization, and the return structure (full content 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?

Extremely concise: a one-sentence purpose, then structured USE WHEN/NOT FOR sections, followed by parameter and return definitions. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information (purpose, usage guidelines) is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's moderate complexity (combining search and read) and the presence of an output schema (which covers returns), the description fully covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameters, and return behavior. No gaps remain for an agent to misunderstand.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, but the description adds context beyond schema: default values for read_count and format, max value for read_count, and explanation of what 'read' means. This helps the agent choose correct parameter values effectively.

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 searches and reads top results in one call. It distinguishes from sibling tools mediawiki_search and mediawiki_get_page by specifying when not to use each (e.g., 'Not for known page titles (use mediawiki_get_page directly)'). The verb-resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'NOT FOR' sections, offering clear context for when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. It names specific sibling tools (mediawiki_search, mediawiki_get_page) and explains the trade-off (fastest path vs. listing results). This leaves no ambiguity for the agent.

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