search_wiki

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'returns ranked results with relevance scores and match context', but does not state whether it is read-only, any rate limits, or behavior on empty queries. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple search tool.

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 purpose and return information, and includes a useful filtering note. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 search tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and the domain filter. It could be improved by explicitly mentioning read-only nature or contrasting with siblings, but it is adequate for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'Filter by domain for targeted searches', which reiterates the domain parameter, but does not introduce new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the compliance wiki for articles matching keywords' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on keyword search, while siblings like get_article or wiki_stats serve different functions.

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 usage for finding articles via keywords and mentions domain filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No alternative tools are named or exclusions are listed, making it implicit rather than explicit.

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