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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are ranked best-first and each match carries the matched passages as excerpts, which tells the agent what to expect from a call. It omits any auth, rate-limit, or freshness/indexing caveats.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the return shape and the handoff to get_knowledge_document. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return contract (id, sourceId, kind, title, link, excerpt, score) plus ranking order, and it names the follow-up tool for reading a full document. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret results is missing.

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%, so q, limit, and knowledgeSourceIds are fully documented in the schema, including the default of 5 and the pointer to list_knowledge_sources. The description adds no input-side meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) and resource (the workspace's published knowledge) with concrete examples of what counts as knowledge (help center articles, website pages, other sources). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_knowledge_documents, list_knowledge_sources, and the generic search/fetch.

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 a clear usage context ('the way Aide does when it answers customers') and an explicit next step for full content via get_knowledge_document. It does not state when NOT to use it or contrast with other retrieval siblings, 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.