search_knowledge_base

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape ('relevant excerpts') and a distinctive performance trait ('sub-millisecond execution'), but says nothing about ranking/ordering, result coverage, or the fact that this is a non-mutating read (which is not stated anywhere in structured data).

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?

Two tight sentences with the capability front-loaded and zero redundancy. The 'sub-millisecond execution' clause is a marketing-flavored claim but does carry a small amount of performance signal, so it narrowly earns its place.

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 three-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers what is searched and roughly what comes back, but omits result ordering, whether excerpts carry source references, and where it sits relative to the more targeted sibling tools. Adequate, but with clear gaps an agent would notice when results are ambiguous.

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 explains query, limit and the category enum, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only a loose mapping between the listed content types and the category enum values; it adds no syntax, formatting, or query-strategy guidance beyond the schema.

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 (Search) and a specific resource (the KRA eTIMS knowledge base) and enumerates the content types it covers (guides, API specs, error codes, code tables). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_api_spec, lookup_code or explain_error_code, which cover the very same content areas, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which one to reach for.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named despite three siblings overlapping directly with the listed content categories. Usage is only implied by the word 'comprehensive', which suggests this is the broad first-pass search, but the agent must infer that.

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