search_knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that only titles and short snippets are returned and that snippets are truncated and often omit steps, which is important behavioral context. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but for a search tool the core behavior is clear.

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-organized and front-loaded with the core action and return type, followed by usage guidance and parameter details. Each sentence earns its place, though it is slightly longer than necessary.

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 no annotations, the description covers what it returns, when to use it, how to use the parameters, and what to do next via get_knowledge_article. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: text as symptoms/error text/procedure, category with concrete examples, and limit with an explicit 1-20 range that the schema omits. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema names.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('knowledge base'), and describes exactly what it returns: titles and short snippets. By naming get_knowledge_article as the following step, it distinguishes search from retrieval.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to consult the tool: before diagnosing from first principles or telling a user what to do, because the documented procedure is authoritative. It also directs the agent to call get_knowledge_article afterwards, providing a clear workflow and alternative.

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