data_search_knowledge

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

Annotations indicate destructveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the tool may have side effects and external impact. The description only adds auth-scope context and does not disclose what side effects, what could be modified, or why destructve behavior exists, leaving a significant transparency gap.

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 compact, front-loaded with the action name, and uses a clean Args block. Every sentence serves a purpose without repetition or fluff.

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?

The tool has an output schema and the two parameters are minimally documented, so some completeness is present. But the destructive/open-world annotations and the very large sibling set call for more context about what `search_knowledge` actually does, when it should be used, and what side effects might occur.

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 Args section adds meaning beyond the bare schema by describing `message` as a free-text obective and `inputs` as an optional JSON structure. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate more fully; it does not specify the expected shape or semantics of the structured `inputs` JSON or give examples.

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 identifies the verb ('Run') and resource ('the data domain agent action search_knowledge'), giving the tool a distinct operational focus. It does not distinguish this from related siblings such as `dispatch_domain_agent` or `rag_query`, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of applicable scenarios. The routing/auth context ('under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') explains mechanics, not selection criteria.

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