search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return fields (path, source_url, freshness) and the truncation behavior when more than `limit` pages match, adding useful behavioral context beyond the 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then filters, then return behavior. It is succinct and every sentence adds value without any redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main search behavior and the output schema handles return values. It adds a helpful note about truncation beyond the limit, but it omits the `country` parameter from the schema and does not reference sibling tools for comparison, leaving a mild completeness gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains `query` (searches title/branch/insurer and page content), `type` (lists allowed values), and the slug filters for branch and insurer. However, `country` is not mentioned, and `limit` is only alluded to in the truncation note, leaving some gaps.

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 'Search wiki pages by title/branch/insurer and page content,' specifying both the action and the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page and get_product, which focus on retrieval rather than search.

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 context for when to use this tool: to search wiki pages with filters. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the search-focused wording implicitly separates it from retrieval tools.

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