search_solution_articles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the search is read-only (likely but not confirmed), whether results are paginated, or how matching works (exact vs fuzzy). Key behavioral traits are missing.

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 sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or separate sections) and could benefit from more informative content without losing brevity.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and many sibling tools, the description is underdeveloped. It does not explain how the search behaves (e.g., pagination, result limits, sorting) or how it differs from get_solution_article. The output schema partially compensates, but the tool description remains incomplete for an AI agent to use confidently.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning to the keyword parameter. It merely restates 'by keyword' without specifying format, length, case-sensitivity, or allowed patterns. This adds minimal value beyond the parameter name.

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 action (search) and resource (knowledge base articles) with the keyword filter. It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like search_contacts or the retrieval tool get_solution_article.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_solution_article (for specific article retrieval) or search_contacts (for contact search). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or best use cases.

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