search_wiki

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden by explaining that results are excerpts per page and that follow-up page reads require read_wiki. It does not explicitly state the search is read-only or mention result ordering, but the search operation is inherently safe and the main behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence names the resource and scope, the second explains how to phrase queries, and the third gives a concrete example and output/next-step behavior. Every sentence contributes information 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?

The description is sufficient for a low-complexity search tool with no output schema: it specifies what is searched, how to query, what is returned, and how to continue with read_wiki. Missing details like result limit behavior or pagination are minor given the schema default and the clear usage guidance.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning to the query parameter by instructing a natural-language question rather than a key, and it links results to the page parameter for read_wiki. The limit parameter is not described, but its default is present in the schema and the core query semantics are clarified.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') with a specific resource ('the OrcaSlicer wiki') and enumerates the content it covers: calibration, troubleshooting, print preparation, and setting pages. It also distinguishes itself from find_settings by explaining that many wiki pages describe no setting, so this tool reaches content the sibling cannot.

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 gives explicit guidance on how to query ('Ask it the question... rather than a key') and when it should be used over find_settings. It also tells the agent to pass a returned page to read_wiki for full reading, which clarifies the workflow between siblings.

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