Knowledge Search

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description earns credit for adding non-obvious behavior: results are merged and sorted by score, and filters are collection-aware with conditions skipped for collections lacking the property. This is exactly the kind of semantic that annotations cannot convey, though no rate limits or result-shape caveats are given.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mode, then the collection-scope and merge/sort behavior. No filler, no repetition of schema content.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description adequately covers scope, modes, and filter semantics for an 11-parameter search tool. The missing piece is routing guidance among the many knowledge_* siblings, which leaves the agent to infer tool choice.

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 the schema already documents all 11 parameters including the alpha and search_type semantics. The description's mention of hybrid/semantic/keyword modes mirrors the search_type schema description rather than extending it, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search across knowledge collections') and names the three retrieval modes, which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings such as knowledge_query and knowledge_ask, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 never says when to pick this tool over knowledge_query, knowledge_ask, or knowledge_related, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage-adjacent hint is that omitted collections means 'all', which is schema-level information rather than guidance.

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