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 real behavior: it returns a synthesized answer with [PageID] citations, and it explicitly supports parallel multi-query invocation. It omits rate limits, auth expectations, and any indication of result size or paging, so not fully transparent.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by scoped coverage and a clean bulleted usage list. Some promotional filler ('much faster and more accurate than guessing') could be trimmed, but the structure is easy to scan.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return format (synthesized answer with citations) and usage timing, which is what an agent needs. Gaps are minor: no pagination or result-scope expectations.

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% and the schema already gives examples for both query and context, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the multi-angle query idea but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail 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+resource ('Search the knowledge base') and enumerates the covered content domains (framework docs, API references, config formats, best practices). It is clearly distinct from siblings like query_hyperparameter_priors or get_page by domain, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Provides a concrete when-to-use list ('Understand how a framework works', 'Look up config formats', 'Get verified information instead of guessing') plus timing guidance ('BEFORE you start coding') and a parallelism tip. No explicit when-not or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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