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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the retrieval algorithm (BM25), the corpus scope, and that it returns relevant content—useful behavioral context for a read-only search tool. It does not specify result format or caveats, but no destructive behavior is implied.

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, front-loaded sentence that places the action and resource first. Every clause adds useful information—algorithm, corpus, and return behavior—with zero filler.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the corpus, algorithm, and result type. It could be improved by stating result fields (e.g., title, URL, snippet), but the schema plus description provide sufficient context 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?

The input schema documents both parameters fully (query with min/max length and language, topK with min/max/default). The description adds domain context but no additional parameter-level meaning, so it earns the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 names the specific verb ('search'), the exact resource ('rafsoft.net knowledge base'), and the scope ('FAQ, docs, blog, pricing'). It also states the return behavior ('Returns relevant content') and the domain, making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_faq.

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 clearly signals it is for cross-cutting full-text search across multiple knowledge base sections, implying when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough for an agent to choose it over the sibling tools.

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