search_knowledge_base

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool accepts natural language or keywords, which is a behavioral trait about query interpretation. It implies a read-only search (no side effects mentioned), and does not introduce any misleading or surprising behavior. The presence of an output schema further clarifies return format, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The core function is front-loaded, and the usage guidance immediately follows. Every sentence earns its place, making it an example of ideal conciseness.

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 3-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent when to use it and provides a clear scope. It does not describe return format or pagination, but the output schema covers that. No critical missing context is apparent.

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%: query, tag, and limit all have descriptive text in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema carries the burden, and the description does not enhance it.

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 searches the company knowledge base with natural language or keywords, specifying the verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_documents or get_document, but the verb 'search' inherently implies a query-based retrieval distinct from listing or fetching, so purpose is clear though sibling differentiation is implicit.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this FIRST whenever a question might be answered by internal documentation.' It also provides examples of content (processes, runbooks, policies). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'FIRST' directive and clear context make this strong guidance for an agent.

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