ai_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'AI-powered' and 'semantic' aspects, which hint at non-deterministic or relevance-based behavior, but does not disclose other traits such as result formatting, pagination, or potential latency. The added context is minimal but not contradictory.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the main action and scope. No filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete to understand its purpose and scope. It does not mention return format or pagination, but the lack of output schema makes some additional detail desirable, though not critical for a search operation.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameter descriptions present, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, maintaining the baseline of 3.

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 the specific resource set (KB, catalog, incidents), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_knowledge or search_catalog that target a single source. It is a specific verb+resource combination with no ambiguity.

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 use for cross-source semantic search but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tool comparisons, so the guidance is limited to the implied scope.

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