Search solution articles

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

Annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds real operational context: results are trimmed to a ~300-character snippet because full bodies are very large, plus the exact shape of each result (id, title, folder_id/category_id, status, snippet). That is information an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and result shape, then the size caveat and the hand-off to the read tool. Minor redundancy between the 'trimmed unless include_body' sentence and the schema's own warning about size.

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 an output schema and strong annotations already present, the description covers the key gaps: result fields, snippet trimming, and where to go for full content. Pagination and the user_email visibility behavior are left entirely to the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine guidance for include_body — what it returns (full HTML/text), the token cost, and the preferred alternative — rather than just restating the field.

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 and resource ('Full-text search across published knowledge-base articles') and scopes it to published content, which separates it from the sibling folder/article-listing tools.

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 routes the agent to get_solution_article by id when the full article is needed, and the include_body note tells it to prefer reading over bulk body retrieval. It does not contrast with get_list_of_solution_article, so the search-vs-list choice is only implied.

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