search_service_knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention returning citations, which is useful, but lacks context about authentication, result limits, error behavior, or the meaning of 'approved' knowledge. The read-only nature of a search is implied but not stated.

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 that is immediately front-loaded with the verb and purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context such as when to use this tool versus alternatives, and what the locale parameter does. For a search tool with two parameters, the description is under-specified and leaves the agent to guess about locale semantics and search scope.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the 'query' or 'locale' parameters beyond their names. 'Query' is somewhat self-evident, but 'locale' is unexplained and could significantly affect results. The description adds no value over the bare parameter 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 description uses a specific verb ('Search') and clearly identifies the resource ('approved service-business knowledge') and outcome ('return citations'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like collect_intake and escalate_to_human, which serve different purposes.

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 usage for searching knowledge, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no mention of 'use this before escalating' or alternatives.

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