search_hr_knowledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds the underlying table name and HR scope, but doesn't disclose result format, ordering, or pagination behavior. With annotations covering the main behavioral traits, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the parity reference adds context without bloat.

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 read-only search tool, the description covers the core purpose and scope. It doesn't describe return values, but the absence of an output schema and the presence of readOnlyHint make this a minor gap. The parity reference provides a behavioral anchor.

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 documents all three parameters (query, kb, limit). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Search') and resource ('HR-scoped knowledge articles'), and clarifies the underlying table ('kb_knowledge in HR knowledge bases'). The 'HR-scoped' qualifier distinguishes it from general knowledge search tools like search_knowledge.

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 HR knowledge retrieval and mentions parity with ServiceNow HRSD 'HR Knowledge Search', giving clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over search_knowledge or list_knowledge_bases, nor any exclusions.

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