search-page-by-prefix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns matching page titles and IDs, notes the autocomplete-style behavior, and mentions performance, but it doesn't address authorization, ordering, case sensitivity, or no-result behavior. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is three concise sentences, each providing distinct value: purpose, return contents, and usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and has no redundant wording.

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 search tool, the description covers purpose, return format, and when to use it. The main gaps are not naming the alternative tool explicitly and not mentioning edge-case behavior, but overall it's sufficiently complete for an agent to select and 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?

The input schema already describes all 3 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the query as a prefix (already in schema) or how limit behaves.

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 the tool searches for pages by title prefix (autocomplete-style), names the resource (pages) and the specific scope (title prefix), and differentiates from full-text search by noting it's faster when the beginning of the title is known. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search-page or find-page.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use it: 'when you know the beginning of the page title', and implies an alternative (full-text search) for other cases. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative tool, which would strengthen the guidance.

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