Search the wiki

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the BM25 keyword-search method and scope targets, but it does not describe result format, ranking, limits, or pagination.

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 short and front-loaded: it states the search method, scope options, a practical usage rule, and a compact example. Every sentence contributes without unnecessary repetition.

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?

For a read-only search tool with complete parameter documentation and no output schema, the description covers the core context: search type, scope, and a duplicate-avoidance use case. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning what search results contain.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the scope enum and sandbox_id origin. The description reinforces the scope meanings and provides an example call, but adds little semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: BM25 keyword search over wiki pages, raw sources, or both. It distinguishes the scope variants well, but does not explicitly contrast wiki_search with sibling tools such as wiki_read or wiki_list.

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 gives a concrete usage rule: search before creating a page to avoid duplicates. Scope options are also explained, but it does not state when to prefer search over alternatives like wiki_read, wiki_list, or wiki_get_info.

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