Search the TOGAF knowledge base

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the cross-domain scope and bilingual support, and notes `reference` is faster for known IDs. However, it does not state the result format, pagination limit behavior, or explicitly confirm that this is a read-only operation. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope; the sibling routing hint is placed second. No redundant filler given the bilingual audience, and each sentence earns its place.

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 simple search tool with a fully documented schema and a key routing hint to `reference`, the description is nearly complete. The missing explicit return-format description is a minor gap given no output schema, but it does not prevent an agent from invoking the tool 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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no new parameter detail beyond restating the searchable kinds, which the schema already enumerates via the `kinds` enum.

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?

Describes a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('phases, techniques, deliverables, and the glossary' in the TOGAF knowledge base), and explicitly contrasts with `reference` for ID-known lookups. This differentiates it from the sibling tool sufficiently.

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 tells agents to use `reference` when the ID is already known, and implies search for keyword-based cross-domain queries. This is clear when-to-use guidance relative to the most relevant sibling.

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