Search the OSRS Wiki

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (titles, URLs, short snippets), which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the usage rule front-loaded and the return shape second. Nothing to trim.

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 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, selection rule and return contents. It omits pagination behavior (the cursor parameter implies paging) and any hint about result quality, minor gaps given the rich 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% with descriptions for query, limit (default 10, max 50) and cursor. The description adds no syntax, format or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('find OSRS Wiki pages') and explicitly positions itself as the catch-all ('anything no other tool covers'), which distinguishes it from the many specific siblings like get_item or get_quest. It stops short of naming any sibling directly, but the fallback framing is clear.

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?

Gives an explicit selection rule: use this for anything no other tool covers, implying the specialized tools are preferred when they apply. It does not name a specific alternative or state a when-not condition, so it falls just short of a 5.

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