Research the wiki

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns context, sources, disagreements, and low_confidence signals; it pulls from pages and attached files; it assembles answer-ready grounding in one call. No contradictions.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, followed by return values and alternatives. It is efficient but slightly longer than necessary; however, every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, output schema, many siblings), the description is complete. It explains return types, prerequisites, and error conditions, and references alternatives. The output schema exists, so full return structure details are not needed.

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% with all parameters described. The baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the score remains at baseline.

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's purpose: 'Answer a question — or gather everything relevant on a topic — from the wiki by MEANING.' It uses a specific verb+resource combination and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like search (exact-name/term lookup), read_chunk, and get_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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use alternatives: 'To read one section deeper use read_chunk ... or get_page. For exact-name/term lookup use search.' It also notes a prerequisite (requires configured embedder) and mentions the error code 503 if missing.

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