Search Zendesk Help Center

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the exact result fields returned (title, snippet, canonical URL, updated date, product, plan requirements, lifecycle status) and the fact that results are paginated and exclude community posts. It is somewhat under-specified on pagination limits, which the schema carries instead.

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, front-loaded with the scope constraint and then the return payload, with zero filler. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and noting pagination and the exclusion of community posts, and the fully-covered input schema handles parameters. Only minor gaps remain, such as pagination bounds and result ordering, which are not strictly required to call the tool correctly.

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 all five parameters (query, page, per_page, locale, product) are already documented, including defaults and the 'soft filter/boost' nature of product. The description adds nothing parameter-level except a nod to pagination, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (search) plus resource (Zendesk product documentation on support.zendesk.com) and explicitly scopes the corpus: 'articles only; community posts are excluded'. It also implicitly separates itself from get_help_article (single article) and search_developer_docs (developer docs), though it never names a sibling, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement — reach for this to find Help Center articles by keyword — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing directive to alternatives such as get_help_article for a known article or search_developer_docs for developer content. Adequate but leaves selection to inference.

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