gateway_knowledge_document_search

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

The description does reveal that the tool is an alias, which is a behavioral trait beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it provides no details about what gateway_knowledge_search actually does, any side effects beyond the read-only hint, or limitations. The annotation covers read-only status, so the description adds minimal transparency.

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 short sentence, making it structurally concise and front-loaded. However, the brevity is a liability because it omits nearly all functional information. The sentence does earn its place in the sense of being short, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and a description that only references another tool, the definition is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot call this tool correctly without independently inspecting gateway_knowledge_search, and even that tool's description is not provided in this context. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of behavioral and parameter guidance.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides zero explanation of query, space, limit, include_groups, or include_personal. The alias statement does not help an agent understand parameter semantics or construct a valid call. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 only states 'Compatibility alias for gateway_knowledge_search' without describing what the tool does or what resource it operates on. It avoids a pure tautology by referencing a sibling tool, but it still fails to provide a specific verb+resource. An agent cannot determine this tool's function from the description alone beyond the name's implication.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus gateway_knowledge_search or other search tools. The description merely declares it an alias without explaining whether it is deprecated, preferred, or how it differs from the target. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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