Knowledge Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: full-text semantics (AND-ed terms, prefix matching, quoted phrases, -word exclusion), that entries are prompt/completion pairs, and that synced articles are chunked under a shared source. It stops short of describing ordering or result shape limits.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then syntax, then the data model. Every clause carries information the agent needs; nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what an entry is (Q/A pair, chunked source), and the search syntax is spelled out. Pagination and ordering semantics are left to the schema, which documents page/limit adequately, so nothing critical is missing 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by actually defining the query syntax behind the `search` parameter ('words are AND-ed and prefix matched, "quoted phrases", -word to exclude'), which the schema's bare 'Search text.' does not. The other five parameters derive their meaning from the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the knowledge base of an organization') and immediately qualifies the scope with the search syntax and entry model. It never names the generic sibling `search` or `knowledge_get`, so an agent cannot fully rule out alternatives from the description alone.

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?

'Omit search to browse all entries' gives one clear usage mode (browse vs. query). However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over `knowledge_get` or the generic `search`, and no exclusions are stated, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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