search_knowledge

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

Annotations already indicate it is read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by revealing the search is relevance-ranked (BM25) and limited to local (single instance) data, which are behavioral traits not covered by 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 a single 7-word sentence, extremely concise. It conveys the core purpose without waste, but the brevity limits the information conveyed while remaining efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema exists, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the role of 'model' and 'instance', how 'limit' affects results, or what the output contains. The existing output schema partially compensates, but the description lacks sufficient context for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 4 parameters. However, it only mentions 'previously indexed records', which weakly hints at 'model' and 'instance' but offers no concrete meaning for 'query', 'limit', or the relationship between parameters.

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 specifies a concrete action ('search'), identifies the resource ('previously indexed records'), and includes the ranking method ('BM25') and scope ('local'). It clearly distinguishes from cross-instance or global search siblings like 'search_across_instances'.

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 local searches over indexed records but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'search_records' or 'search_across_instances'. No exclusions or context are given.

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