search_knowledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, informing the agent this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds the 'local' qualifier, indicating the search scope, but does not reveal behavior like result ranking or pagination. Given annotations, this is acceptable and not contradictory, but the added value is minimal.

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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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, the description, combined with robust annotations and an output schema, is adequate. It specifies the resource type and scope. It lacks any caveats about search behavior, but the simplicity of the tool and presence of output schema compensate.

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 input schema has two parameters (query and limit) with zero schema descriptions. The description does not explain these parameters, leaving the agent to infer that 'query' is the search term and 'limit' caps results. This is a significant gap since the description carries full burden for param semantics with 0% schema coverage.

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's function: searching local support knowledge and policy articles. The verb 'search' and the resource 'knowledge and policy articles' are specific and distinct from sibling tools that deal with tickets, queues, or audit events.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when the agent needs to search knowledge articles. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or mention alternatives, such as find_similar_tickets for ticket similarity, so it falls 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.