search_knowledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's 'Offline' wording is consistent with openWorldHint=false but adds little beyond it, and says nothing about result ordering or 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?

A single tightly packed sentence with the primary purpose front-loaded. It is efficiently sized, though the heavy parenthetical makes the alternative use case read as an afterthought rather than structured guidance.

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 needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 4-parameter search tool with an untyped filter ('art', 'quelle') and no pagination/limit note, the description leaves the agent to infer filtering behavior entirely from the schema.

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 75%: 'art', 'quelle' and 'suchbegriff' carry schema-level examples and the full-text semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, and 'limit' is undocumented in both places, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Offline-Suche im Gedächtnis') and adds a concrete secondary use case (mapping free task texts to canonical tasks). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_jobs or search_occupation, so it falls short of a 5.

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 parenthetical gives one implied trigger (canonicalizing free-text tasks) and 'Offline' hints at local-only scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g. search_occupation, remember) guidance or exclusions.

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