AxKnowledgeBase_search_knowledge_base

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool returns (most similar passages with source and similarity score) and its purpose (semantic search), which implies a read-only operation. It also adds a behavioral note about citing results directlycsss. It does not discuss limitations or edge cases, but for a search tool this is transparent enough.

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 two sentences long, with the primary action and resource front-loaded. Every clause earns its place: the first sentence defines the scope, the second explains the output and the use case (citation). There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple two-parameter search tool, the description is complete: it covers what is searched, what is returned, and how the results can be used. There is no output schema, but the description explicitly describes the output components (passages, source, similarity score). It could mention pagination or result ordering, but the schema's limit parameter and the 'most similar' phrasing cover the essential behavior.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both query and limit fully described ('Natural language question or topic to search for', 'Maximum number of passages to return (1-50)'). The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Semantic search') and a well-defined resource ('Axiomatic's curated knowledge base of scientific papers, entities, and prior results'), and clearly distinguishes it from the private-KB sibling by emphasizing 'curated' and 'source (paper id/title)'. It also explains the output (most similar passages with source and similarity score), so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool: 'Prefer this over unsourced claims like "this is a standard result"'. This tells the agent to use it when a citable, authoritative source is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives like search_private_knowledge_base, but the context strongly implies the public/curated scope, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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