search-page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions return fields ('titles, IDs, and text excerpts') and search scope ('across wiki pages'), but does not disclose details like sorting, pagination, or wiki-filtering semantics. For a simple search tool, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return value, and usage scenario. No filler or redundancy, and key information is front-loaded.

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 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, return values, and use case. It could mention behavior like result ordering or wiki scoping, but the schema already covers the wiki parameter. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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 the schema already documents all parameters (wiki, limit, query). The description adds context about query intent ('full-text search', 'don't know exact title') but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 'Full-text search across wiki pages' with a specific verb and resource, and it lists return values ('matching page titles, IDs, and text excerpts'). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting it is for when you 'don't know the exact title', setting it apart from find-page and search-page-by-prefix.

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 provides clear guidance: 'Use this to find pages when you don't know the exact title.' This implies when to use the tool (fuzzy/full-text search) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tool search-page-by-prefix exists but is not mentioned.

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