search_wiki

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that multiple keywords narrow results and that the tool is not a general search engine. This helps manage expectations. The existence of an output schema further aids transparency, though more details on pagination or errors could be beneficial.

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 concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the rest provides actionable tips. No unnecessary words. Could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient.

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 (3 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the core functionality and usage patterns. It addresses keyword selection and batching. Missing details like error handling or rate limits are acceptable for a search tool with an output schema.

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 100% (all params have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: for 'q', it provides examples ('信标 激活') and clarifies that multiple keywords narrow instead of broaden. This improves usability.

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: '搜索 Minecraft 中文 Wiki' (search the Chinese Minecraft Wiki). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools (check_page_exists, get_page) indicate that this tool is for searching, not for direct page retrieval or existence checks.

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 clear usage guidelines: use 1-3 keywords, multiple keywords narrow the range (all must appear), and for multi-angle searches, batch calls instead of piling keywords. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to siblings, the context from sibling names implies it is for search, not other operations.

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