search_pdf_knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the vector similarity approach (768-dim nomic-embed), indicates the tool is read-only (RAG retrieval), and specifies the return format. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior, potential latency, or preconditions like indexing status. Slight gap prevents a 5.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, sibling differentiators, technical detail, and then Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

For a search tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all relevant aspects: query semantics, database selection, result count, and return format including fields (title, similarity score, layer, etc.). It also handles edge cases like empty index or no matches. Complete and informative.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: query is described as a 'natural language question or keyword phrase,' databases as 'list of database slugs' with examples, and top_k with default value. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states the tool performs semantic/vector search across knowledge database layers on PDF chunks. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings: search_fulltext for exact keyword, search_library for reference metadata, and semantic_search for personal notes. This meets the 5 standard for specific verb+resource and sibling differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'for exact keyword matches use search_fulltext; for reference metadata use search_library; for your own notes/memory use semantic_search.' It also explains that you can search a single layer or combine layers, with examples. This fully meets the criteria for explicit when/when-not/alternatives.

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