Search knowledge base

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add real value by disclosing that results are truncated ('a short text sample'), which prevents an agent from quoting a snippet as an answer. It says nothing about result caps, pagination, or ranking, so it goes beyond annotations only modestly.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: scope, return shape, follow-up. The core capability is front-loaded in the first clause with no preamble or filler.

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 carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does ('matching articles with a short text sample'). It also supplies the follow-up step needed to act on those results. Slightly incomplete in that result count, ordering, and empty-result behavior are unstated for a 2-parameter search tool.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema with examples ('reset password', 'SSO setup') and the categoryId scoping constraint. The description adds no semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search across the Helpjuice knowledge base') and pairs it with the return shape ('matching articles with a short text sample'). That is enough to distinguish it from list_articles (enumerating) and get_article (fetching one full article) without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use get_article to read the full answer before quoting, which tells the agent this is a discovery step, not an answer source. It stops short of naming exclusions, e.g. when to prefer list_articles or find_stale_articles, and gives no guidance on broadening or narrowing a query that returns nothing.

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