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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns matching sections with links to the full source document, which conveys the core behavior. However, it does not mention potential limitations such as exact vs. fuzzy matching, result limits, pagination, or the read-only nature of the operation.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and subject, includes the scope of the knowledge base, and specifies the return value. There is no redundant or filler content, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the input and expected output (matching sections with links). It does not mention result ordering or limits, but for a search tool of this scope those are relatively minor omissions. The description is largely complete for an agent to understand 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?

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter 'query' with the description 'Keyword or phrase to search for.' The tool description reiterates this same phrase but adds no extra detail about formatting, constraints, examples, or edge cases, so it only meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), names the resource ('AI Rollout Framework knowledge base'), and defines the scope (methodology, definitions, positioning, changelog). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_faq and get_framework_overview by representing a general search across the knowledge base rather than a specific retrieval action.

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 implies when to use the tool (when searching for a keyword or phrase anywhere in the knowledge base) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings or what exclusions apply. There is no mention of alternatives, so the agent must infer selection logic from the tool's purpose alone.

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