search_knowledge

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. readOnlyHint and openWorldHint signal safety, but the description does not disclose search semantics, result ordering, or whether it searches full text or metadata.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It concisely captures the tool's core function.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not state what the search returns (e.g., list of article summaries vs. full content). However, for a simple read-only tool with fully documented parameters and clear annotations, the information provided is minimally adequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description's 'by keyword' aligns with the query parameter but adds no additional meaning for limit or knowledge_base.

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 tool searches knowledge base articles by keyword, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_knowledge_article (which retrieves a single article) and list_knowledge_bases, though it does not explicitly reference them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like natural_language_search or ai_search. There are no exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or comparative context given.

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