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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains that returns include snippets with breadcrumbs, toc_path, and kb_id; that nesting is recursive up to 3 levels deep; and that omitting both kb_id and kb_ids fans out across all bases. The canonical call pattern further clarifies expected usage.

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, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently covers return format, parameter usage, nesting rules, and an example. Every sentence adds value, though the density might benefit from slight reordering.

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 complexity of federated search and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains return values, nesting depth limits, fan-out behavior, and provides a canonical call pattern. It addresses all key aspects needed for correct invocation.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining the '/' nesting semantics for kb_id, the relationship between kb_id and kb_ids, and the context of detail_limit producing lightweight previews. This enhances the agent's understanding of how parameters interact.

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 resource ('connected knowledge bases'). It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'search' by emphasizing the federated nature and providing a canonical call pattern. The return format (snippets with breadcrumbs, toc_path, kb_id) is explicitly described.

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 explicit guidance on parameter usage: pass kb_id for one base, kb_ids for selected bases, or omit both to fan out. It explains nesting with '/' and gives a canonical call example. While it doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios (e.g., when to use plain 'search' instead), the context is clear.

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