searchKnowledgeBases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action of searching and offers no details about result types, relevance ordering, what happens when no knowledgeBaseIds are given, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency for a tool expected to return content.

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, well-formed sentence that communicates the core purpose without any redundancy or filler. It earns its place with zero waste.

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 and no annotations, the description must explain enough about behavior to allow correct usage, but it omits what the returned 'relevant content' looks like, whether the search defaults to all knowledge bases, and any pagination or filtering nuances. This leaves significant gaps for a non-trivial 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (query, documentCount, knowledgeBaseIds). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'search' with the resource 'knowledge bases' and clarifies scope as 'one or more'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like listKnowledgeBases and getKnowledgeBase, which perform listing and retrieval respectively.

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 this tool is for finding relevant content across one or more knowledge bases, which naturally contrasts with list/get siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention possible exclusions, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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