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=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries less burden. It does not contradict annotations, but it adds only general context (types of material) without detailing behavior like result structure, pagination, or ranking. Thus, adequate but not enriching.
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 efficiently conveys the action and purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Slight room for trimming but overall concise 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?
For a simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context (resource and purpose). However, it lacks details on result format or how to interpret output, which could be important for an agent. Sibling tools are not referenced, leaving some ambiguity.
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%, with both parameters well-described in the input schema (query and limit). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Search' and the specific resource 'Appendix's medical knowledge base', listing content types (clinical literature, treatment guidelines, reference material). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on medical literature search, while list_conditions and submit_encounter imply different operations.
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 use when helping a user describe a medical issue, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_conditions or submit_encounter. No exclusions or when-not conditions are provided.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: listing conditions, searching knowledge base, and submitting encounters. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (list_conditions, search_knowledge_base, submit_encounter).
Three tools is on the smaller side but appropriate for the focused domain of medical reference and encounter submission. Each tool serves a clear function.
The core workflow (list conditions, search, submit) is covered, but missing operations like retrieving encounter history or managing submitted encounters would aid completeness.