wiki_search_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('search') and return format ('list of results with id, title, path, description, and total_hits'), but lacks critical details: whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and return format. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient for agent comprehension.

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 complexity (search operation with 1 parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and return fields but misses behavioral context (e.g., search scope limitations, result ordering, pagination) and doesn't fully explain the single parameter. For a search tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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 schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'Full-text search' which implies the query_str parameter is for search terms, adding some meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Query Str' title. However, it doesn't detail query syntax, supported operators, or examples, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'Full-text search across all wiki pages.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('all wiki pages'), distinguishing it from siblings like wiki_get_page (retrieve single page) or wiki_list_pages (list without search). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hypothetical search alternatives, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer wiki_search_pages over wiki_list_pages for browsing, or when to use wiki_get_page for known page IDs. There's no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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