Search Company Wiki

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

Annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does so by stating the return value shape: matching page slugs, titles, and excerpts. There is no contradiction with the 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?

Two short sentences communicate the action, resource scope, and return format with no filler or redundancy. The key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential input and output details. It could add context about result constraints or ranking, but those are not necessary for a straightforward keyword search call.

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 already documents the single required parameter as 'Search keyword', and the description's 'by keyword' phrase aligns with it. The description adds no extra detail about matching behavior, case sensitivity, pagination, or result limits, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 identifies a specific action ('Search') and resource ('this company's private memory wiki'), and states the output format ('matching page slugs, titles and excerpts'). It is more specific than a generic 'search' statement, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similarly named siblings like search_wiki or read_company_wiki.

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 a keyword-search use case but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to alternative tools. With siblings such as search_wiki, search_documents, read_wiki, and recall_conversations present, an agent receives no guidance on when this tool is preferred over those.

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