Knowasiak

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context the annotations don't: the response is Markdown and a profile payload includes its links and recent posts, which sets expectations about payload size and shape.

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, zero waste, with the core action and format front-loaded and the id/precedent detail following. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input origin, output format, and payload composition. Minor gaps remain around error handling for unknown ids and whether 'recent posts' is bounded or paginated.

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% and the single `id` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including both literal prefixes. The description repeats the same two example ids without adding syntax, validation, or edge-case guidance 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 (Read), resource (one Knowasiak profile or post), scope (in full), and output format (Markdown), plus the id source. An agent can immediately distinguish this full-record fetch from the list-oriented siblings find_businesses, latest_posts, and search.

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?

"by the id from search" implicitly establishes the search-then-fetch workflow and routes the agent to the correct sibling for discovery. It doesn't state exclusions (e.g. when to prefer latest_posts instead) or what happens with an invalid id, so it falls short of an explicit when/when-not statement.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds little beyond that — it doesn't say how results are ordered, whether matches are fuzzy or exact, or what happens when "what" matches nothing, which matters for an open-world discovery tool.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the core capability is front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

A three-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and complete annotations needs little more than this. The remaining gap is that it never characterizes the result set (fields returned, how many matches, empty-result behavior) for a tool with no output schema.

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%, including examples for "what" and "where" and the limit default/min/max, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the optional country/city behavior already documented in the "where" parameter, adding no matching semantics (e.g. whether "India" matches city-level records).

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 and resource ("Find businesses on Knowasiak") plus the scoping dimension (what they do, optional country/city). It is clear what the tool returns conceptually, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling "search" tool, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

"Use it when someone wants a supplier, agency, service provider or partner" gives a concrete intent trigger that maps well to real user requests. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use or pointing at the sibling "search"/"fetch" tools, so routing between them is still left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond that: results are restricted to 'public' posts (a visibility filter) and are ordered by recency ('newest'). It does not mention default result count or whether the topic filter is a full-text match, which would matter for an open-world feed.

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 compact sentence with zero filler, and the core behavior ('newest public posts') is front-loaded before the optional qualifier.

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 two-parameter, read-only feed tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only residual gap is that there is no output schema and the description says nothing about what a returned post contains.

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%: `limit` has a default and min/max bounds, and `topic` has concrete examples. The description only restates that the topic filter is optional, adding no syntax or matching semantics beyond the schema, so 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?

The description states a specific resource and scope: the newest public posts on Knowasiak, optionally filtered by topic. An agent can tell this is a browse-the-latest-feed tool rather than a search tool, though no sibling is named for explicit contrast.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer it over the sibling `search` (which presumably handles keyword discovery) despite the topic parameter overlapping with search semantics. The only hint is 'optionally about a topic,' leaving the choice implicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what annotations cannot: the result shape (ids, short snippet, public URL) and the public nature of the corpus, which matters because there is no output schema. Nothing about rate limits or result completeness is stated, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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, no filler. What the tool searches and what it returns are both front-loaded, and the follow-up action is stated last where it belongs.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers the return payload (ids plus snippets and URLs) and the follow-up tool. An agent has enough to call and chain it correctly; only the guidance about when to prefer a sibling tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so type, limit and query are already documented with enum values, defaults and examples. The description echoes the type options implicitly ('businesses, people and posts') but adds no query syntax, matching behavior, or limit semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Knowasiak), plus the entity scope (businesses, people, posts) and the size of the corpus. It also clarifies the relationship with the sibling fetch (this returns ids, fetch reads them in full). It does not, however, distinguish itself from find_businesses or latest_posts, which sound like overlapping entry points.

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?

It gives a clear next-step rule (use fetch to read results in full), which is genuine routing guidance. But it never says when to use this tool instead of find_businesses or latest_posts, so the agent must infer that from names alone.

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