search_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: keyword search, coverage of all MD documents, and return of original section text. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or result limits, but for a simple read-oriented search tool the core behavior is transparent and accurate.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second states the return type. There is no waste, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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 simple search tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the search scope and return value (original text of relevant sections). It could add details like result ordering or count, but it is sufficiently complete for the tool's apparent complexity.

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?

The single parameter 'query' is fully documented in the schema with examples, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but because the schema handles the parameter description well, the baseline score of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('검색합니다' = searches) and names the exact resource (Samsung Checkout knowledge base, all MD documents). It also states what is returned (original text of relevant sections), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like lookup_api or guide generators.

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 clearly defines the scope: searching the entire knowledge base across all MD documents, which implies a broad cross-document keyword search. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it does not fully meet the 5-level for explicit when/when-not guidance.

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