search_articles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It indicates a read-only search but omits details like whether the search is case-sensitive, how results are ordered, or the significance of 'compact list.' Minimal disclosure beyond the obvious.

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 to the point, but it's overly terse. It lacks details that would fit in one or two sentences. While concise, it sacrifices completeness.

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 and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't mention the output schema even though one exists, nor does it clarify search behavior (e.g., exact match? relevance ranking?) or any constraints like only English Wikipedia.

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%, yet the description adds no semantic value for the parameters. 'query' and 'limit' are not explained; the limit parameter's purpose (e.g., control result count) is only implied by its default value. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema annotations.

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 ('Search'), the resource ('English Wikipedia'), and the output ('compact list of candidate pages'). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like get_page or get_section, which retrieve full 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings are listed, there's no explicit direction on choosing search_articles over get_page or get_summaries. The description simply states the function without context.

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