Search Documents

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

Annotations already communicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns previews with relevance scores, which is useful but minimal. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action and expected output. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 a full output schema, complete parameter documentation, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description covers the essentials. The only notable gap is not clarifying how this tool relates to 'query_knowledge_library'.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a clear verb ('searches'), resource ('knowledge library'), and output ('previews with relevance scores'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'query_knowledge_library', which sounds functionally similar.

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 implies it is used for searching content within a knowledge library, and the input schema clarifies the required 'query' and 'library_name'. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over 'query_knowledge_library' or other sibling tools.

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