support.search_knowledge_base

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only, destructive potential, authentication requirements, rate limits, or result handling (e.g., pagination, limit). This leaves the agent with insufficient information about side effects and constraints.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It is concise with no wasted words. However, it may be too brief given the lack of behavioral transparency and parameter details, but it 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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain the return format (e.g., snippets, full articles, IDs). It also omits details on pagination, result limits, or error handling. Given the simplicity of the tool (2 optional parameters), a bit more context on what the result looks like is expected for completeness.

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 coverage is 100%; both parameters (query and category) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to the guidelines, this warrants a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool searches the internal knowledge base for articles about NovaTech products, troubleshooting guides, and company policies. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('knowledge base'), and distinguishes from sibling support tools like get_customer_profile, read_tickets, and reply_to_ticket.

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 implies usage for finding articles, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given. However, the context shows no other sibling search tool, so the implied usage is adequate but could be improved.

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