search_articles

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the tool is clearly a safe read operation. The description adds useful scoping by specifying 'English Wikipedia' and clarifying the output is a 'compact list of candidate pages' rather than full article content. No contradiction with annotations.

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, with the main purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence documents the intent parameter in a concise way and earns its place by adding practical guidance, though it is arguably more of a parameter comment than tool description.

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 tool is simple, has robust annotations, and provides an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return structures. It covers the core search behavior and the non-obvious intent parameter well. Some missing guidance about when to prefer this over sibling retrieval tools keeps it from a 5.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description partially compensates: it explains the intent parameter with an example and implies the meaning of query via 'Search English Wikipedia.' However, the limit parameter is not explicitly described, though its role is reasonably inferable from 'compact list' and schema defaults.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search English Wikipedia and return a compact list of candidate pages.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page, get_section, and get_summaries, which retrieve specific content rather than searching for candidates.

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 implies search-as-discovery usage by mentioning 'candidate pages,' but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs. get_page or other siblings. It gives no exclusion rules or alternative guidance, so usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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