Knowledge Query

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the deprecation status and the underlying Weaviate AsyncQueryAgent search mechanism. It does not describe result format, but an output schema exists, so this is minor.

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 deprecation warning is front-loaded in the first token of the description, followed by three tight sentences with no filler. Every sentence earns its place by routing the agent away from a stale tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, that it is deprecated, and where to go instead.

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 all three parameters (query, limit, collections) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond that, making the baseline 3 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Search knowledge store using natural language') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling knowledge_search by naming it as the recommended replacement. An agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

It states an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative rule: it is deprecated and the agent should use knowledge_search instead, with the concrete reason (Cohere reranking and Flash summarization, lower token usage). Nothing is left to inference.

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