search-page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful behavior by stating the return payload (page titles, IDs, text excerpts) and that the search is read-only in nature, but it says nothing about result ordering, pagination beyond the limit param, or whether searching all wikis has cost implications.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, then the return shape, then the selection cue. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only search tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, output shape, and when to reach for it. It is nearly complete; only ranking/pagination behavior and the query syntax are unaddressed.

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%, with wiki, limit, and query all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about query syntax (e.g., whether it supports phrases or operators) or the behavior of omitting wiki, which the schema already covers.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search across wiki pages') and immediately says what comes back (titles, IDs, text excerpts), which separates it from siblings like find-page or search-page-by-prefix. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit selection condition: 'Use this to find pages when you don't know the exact title,' which implicitly contrasts with the exact-title lookup sibling. It does not name the alternative tool (find-page) or say when not to use this one, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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