search_knowledge_baseSearch Appendix's medical knowledge base for clinical literature, treatment guidelines, and reference material to help the user describe their medical issue
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return (1-10, default 5) | |
| query | Yes | Search query (clinical topic or question) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful content scope but does not disclose return format, pagination, or search behavior. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence contains the verb, resource, and purpose without redundancy. Every word contributes 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?
For a low-complexity search tool with complete parameter schema and helpful annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, content scope, and use case. It does not mention return value details, but the absence is not a significant gap for such a simple 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% (query as clinical topic/question, limit with range and default), so the description adds no additional parameter-level detail. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter semantics.
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') and identifies the exact resource (Appendix's medical knowledge base), along with the content types searched (clinical literature, treatment guidelines, reference material). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_conditions and submit_encounter.
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 clear context for when to use the tool: to search clinical reference material and help the user describe a medical issue. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: listing available conditions, searching clinical knowledge, and submitting an encounter. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: list_conditions, search_knowledge_base, submit_encounter. This is uniform and predictable.
With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. Each tool is essential to the workflow of describing, researching, and submitting a medical issue.
The tool surface covers the full workflow: discover what conditions are handled, gather supporting information, and submit an encounter for review. No critical operations are missing.