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 what the tool does (retrieves page content) but lacks critical behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (though implied by 'Get'). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by labeled sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basics (purpose, parameter hint, return type). However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on response format (e.g., structured data vs. raw text), error cases, or prerequisites, leaving some contextual gaps for reliable agent use.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'title' by explaining that it 'can be found in title field of the search results,' which clarifies its source and usage. Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail format constraints like case sensitivity or special characters.

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 action ('Get a page') and resource ('from mediawiki.org'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search' tool, which appears to be a related but distinct operation for finding pages rather than retrieving specific 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the 'search' sibling. It mentions that titles 'can be found in title field of the search results,' which hints at a workflow but doesn't explicitly state when to choose get_page over search or other potential tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search returns a list of pages, which is helpful. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like pagination, sorting, relevance ranking, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately concise with three clear sections: purpose statement, usage advice, parameter documentation, and return value. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose. The structure with labeled 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections is helpful, though the formatting could be cleaner.

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 search tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete coverage. It explains what the tool does and documents parameters, but lacks details about the search algorithm, result format beyond 'list of pages,' error handling, or performance considerations. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain the return structure more thoroughly.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description explicitly documents both parameters: 'query: The query to search for' and 'limit: The number of results to return.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format guidance for the query or explain the default limit value (5 from 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 the tool's purpose: 'Search for a wiki page.' It specifies the resource (wiki page) and action (search). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_page' - we can infer search returns multiple results while get_page likely retrieves a specific page, but this distinction isn't stated.

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 some usage guidance: 'The shorter the request, the better, preferably containing only the main term to be searched.' This offers practical advice but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the 'get_page' sibling. There's implied context that this is for finding pages rather than retrieving specific ones, but no explicit alternative guidance.

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