search

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: ranked retrieval, a sibling score boost for sections from the same document, the meaning of the retrieval_verdict value, and the recommended query strategy. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 leads with the core purpose, then the return shape, then ranking behavior and usage guidance, followed by an important semantic about the retrieval verdict. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose and there is no redundant wording.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and explaining the retrieval verdict semantics. Combined with fully documented schema parameters and safety annotations, the agent has enough information to select the tool, invoke it correctly, and interpret its results without guessing.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, and every parameter already has a clear description covering its purpose, defaults, allowed values, and meaning. The tool description does not need to repeat parameter details, and while it adds general search guidance, it does not meaningfully extend the schema's parameter-level 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 states a specific operation: ranked search over knowledge base content using keyword and semantic relevance, and it lists the exact result fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `recall` tool by explicitly saying 'Use recall for full content', so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: use multiple short keyword queries for best coverage, and use `recall` when full content is needed. It also explains how to interpret retrieval_verdict: 'unanswered' means the knowledge base does not contain the information, so the agent should investigate rather than guess.

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