Search Design Knowledge

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it searches the entire knowledge base, returns top-matching documents, and includes the single most relevant section excerpt plus document id. This is meaningful context without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, then covers what is returned and when to use it. The enumeration of knowledge domains is long but informative for an agent deciding whether this tool matches the task; it earns its place even if it could be tightened.

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?

For a search tool with 4 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential return shape (documents with excerpt and id) and usage context. It distinguishes the tool from the most relevant siblings, which is important given the large sibling list.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces that query should be a natural-language phrase and gives examples of open-ended questions, but it does not need to add much because the schema already documents limit, category, and platform clearly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the whole knowledge base with a natural-language query' and enumerates the covered domains. It clearly differentiates from siblings by stating it returns top-matching documents with an excerpt and id, as opposed to fetching a known doc or listing everything.

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 explicitly states the intended use case ('open-ended how should I… questions') and names alternatives: use get_design_doc when the id is already known, and list_design_knowledge to browse everything. This gives the agent actionable routing guidance.

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