Search the knowledge base

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not re-cover safety. It adds useful behavior: the scope is 'every page,' results are ranked, and the return shape includes page paths, titles, and matching lines with line numbers. This exceeds the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action and scope appear first, followed by the return-value summary and the sibling pointer, all in efficient prose.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this description fully equips an agent to call it correctly, interpret results, and take the obvious next step with kb_read. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, including defaults and ranking behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 action ('ranked full-text search'), a clear resource ('every page in the knowledge base'), and distinguishes itself from likely alternatives like kb_read and kb_list. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 explains the intended downstream action: use the returned line numbers and page paths to cite or open with kb_read. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use the tool versus kb_list or kb_amend, but the search-versus-read contrast is clearly implied.

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