query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states that the tool can answer questions, but does not disclose limitations, permissions, side effects, or whether it performs reads/writes. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, which is concise, but it is vague and does not add substantial value. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose, but the vagueness detracts from its effectiveness. It could be more helpful without being longer.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description should provide context about return format, error handling, or typical use cases. It only states the general function, leaving out important details that an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 0% description coverage for its single required parameter 'prompt'. The description does not elaborate on how to structure the prompt, what types of questions are supported, or any constraints. This provides no added meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 states the tool is an 'enterprise search tool that can answer questions about any sort of knowledge base', which clearly identifies its function (answering questions) and resource (knowledge base). It is not a tautology and distinguishes it implicitly from generic LLM queries, though it is somewhat broad. With no sibling tools, differentiation is not required.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context on appropriate prompts or knowledge base scope. It lacks explicit or implicit usage guidance beyond the general purpose.

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