search-page-by-prefix

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

No annotations are provided, but this is an inherently safe read-only lookup and the description discloses the return payload ('matching page titles and IDs') plus a performance characteristic. It does not mention pagination behavior, the cross-wiki default, or rate limits, so it adds moderate rather than rich behavioral context.

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 action and scope, and each subsequent sentence (return values, performance trade-off) earns its place. No padding or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly states what comes back (titles and IDs), and the inputs are fully covered by the schema. Minor gaps remain around the wiki-scoping default and result limits, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 all three parameters (wiki, limit, query) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'title prefix' restates the query semantics without adding format, matching, or case-sensitivity details, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Search for pages') and narrows it precisely to title-prefix matching with an autocomplete framing. The note about being 'faster than full-text search' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling search-page, so an agent can pick between them without opening schemas.

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 clear context for when to choose this tool ('when you know the beginning of the page title') and contrasts it against full-text search. It stops short of naming the sibling tool explicitly (search-page), leaving the alternative to inference, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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