search

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it uses a shared retrieval spine (hybrid → fusion → optional CE), and public results cite source_id/source_url, never absolute filepaths. This goes beyond the annotation and helps an agent understand output constraints and internal behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The retrieval spine and result-citation behavior are useful details, and the limit clarification is relevant. It earns its place, though the structure could be slightly tighter by grouping the limit note with parameter details.

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 tool has an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the key behavioral aspects an agent needs: what it searches, how retrieval works, and what result fields look like. It doesn't explain when to prefer this over 'discover' or 'get_context', which is a minor gap for a search tool with siblings.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain 'limit' (clamped between 5 and 10; default 5), which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not explain 'query' or 'hybrid' semantics beyond what the schema already provides (names/types/defaults). With 3 params and only one explained, the compensation is partial.

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 and resource: 'Search the AI knowledge base for relevant content.' It clearly identifies what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'discover' or 'get_context', though the retrieval focus is reasonably distinct.

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 usage for searching the knowledge base but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The mention of the retrieval spine and public result behavior gives some context, but no exclusions or alternative routing.

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