knowledge_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two meaningful behaviors: summary-only returns for token efficiency and the default exclusion of reference material. It does not cover other observable behaviors (hybrid keyword+embedding matching, expired-norm ranking/marking, lesson dropping under time filters), though the comprehensive parameter schema fills much of that gap.

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?

Three sentences with no waste: purpose first, then return-type tradeoff, then the default-scope caveat. Each sentence carries distinct information and the most decision-relevant fact (default scope) is stated up front.

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 12-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but lean: it covers return type and default scoping, and the 100%-covered parameter schema handles the details. However, with no output schema, the response structure beyond 'summaries' is never described, and no example or result-metadata hint is given, which is a meaningful gap at this complexity level.

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 the baseline is 3. The top-level description adds little beyond the schema: its nachschlagewerk explanation largely repeats the parameter's own description regarding the 85% reference-material exclusion and default False behavior. No syntax or format details are added for query or date parameters.

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 verb+resource ('full-text search across knowledge') and adds a distinguishing behavior: it 'returns summaries (not full content)', which separates it from content-retrieval siblings like knowledge_read. However, it never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than direct.

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 gives clear scope guidance for the main toggle ('searches Arbeitsbestand only by default; set nachschlagewerk=True to include reference material'), which tells the agent when to configure a parameter. But it offers no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance (e.g., when to prefer knowledge_browse or knowledge_read), leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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