search_channel_knowledge

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It fully discloses that the tool always returns a structured error payload, performs no backend call, and is exempt from rate limiting. This is comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 concise paragraph with front-loaded 'DEPRECATED — do not call.' Every sentence adds value: purpose, replacements, and behavior. No wasted words.

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's simple deprecated nature, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and alternatives. The existence of an output schema is noted but description doesn't need to repeat it.

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 has 2 parameters with no descriptions and 0% coverage. Description does not add meaning to parameters, but since the tool always returns the same error regardless of parameters, the lack of semantic explanation is acceptable. The implicit understanding that parameters are ignored is sufficient.

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 tool is deprecated and a compatibility shim, with a specific purpose of returning an error directing to replacements. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming replacements.

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?

Explicitly says 'DEPRECATED — do not call' and provides two specific replacement tools. Also explains that calling it returns an error and does no work, giving clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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