find-page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the triage order of matching strategies, redirect following, default cross-wiki scope, and the ranked-result ordering. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, but covers the read-only operational semantics thoroughly.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by mechanism and ranking, then usage. Four sentences with little waste, though the final sentence is slightly long. Nothing extraneous.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the returned ranked list and its ordering, so an agent knows what to expect. Combined with full schema coverage, it is complete enough to call correctly, missing only minor operational caveats.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the cross-wiki default (matching the wiki param) and the single ranked list (relating to limit) but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific noun-and-verb framing ('Unified page locator') and details its three-stage matching strategy (exact/redirect, prefix, full-text). It clearly positions itself as the combined superset of the narrower search-page and search-page-by-prefix siblings, so an agent can tell it apart without opening any schema.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this as the first step whenever you need to locate a specific page') and explains it works for exact, partial, or topical input. It doesn't name specific alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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