search_openemr_wiki

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key fallback behavior: 'Falls back to title search automatically if full-text search returns no results,' which is important for understanding results. It also states what the tool returns. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, pagination, or error conditions, which prevents a perfect score.

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, front-loading the purpose and usage in two sentences with zero waste. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple 2-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, usage sequencing, return format, and fallback behavior. It's nearly complete, though it could mention rate limits or that results are limited to 10.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (query and limit) with examples and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or meaning 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?

The description states a specific verb (Search) and resource (OpenEMR wiki) and explicitly names the scope ('documentation on any topic'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the entry point before fetching full content.

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?

It provides an explicit sequencing instruction: 'Use this first to find relevant pages before fetching full content.' This clearly directs the agent to use this tool before alternatives like get_openemr_wiki_page, establishing both when to use it and when to use other tools.

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