find-page

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

The description discloses the search order (exact -> prefix -> full-text), redirect following, cross-wiki default behavior, and ranking logic. This goes beyond a simple 'finds pages' and provides valuable behavioral context, especially since no annotations are present.

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?

Three focused sentences that front-load the purpose, explain the algorithm, and give usage guidance. No redundant or filler content; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: matching strategies, ranking, cross-wiki scope, and usage recommendation. It does not specify the result list item structure, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 descriptions already cover all parameters fully (100% coverage). The description adds reasonable context about how the query maps to different match types and how the wiki parameter defaults to all registered wikis, but this is more behavioral than parameter-level detail.

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 the tool as a 'Unified page locator' and details its multi-strategy search (exact title, prefix, full-text) with a specific ranking order. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search-page and search-page-by-prefix by emphasizing the unified approach.

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?

It explicitly instructs to use this tool as the first step when locating any page, and notes it handles exact titles, partial titles, and topic descriptions. While it does not name alternatives explicitly, the recommendation is strong and implies its superiority for general page location.

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