search_knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no mention of read-only nature, ranking/score behavior, result freshness, index scope, or error conditions. A search is implicitly a safe read, but that is inference rather than stated behavior.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 three parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the core contract is covered, but the description is thin for a retrieval tool: it says nothing about what a result set looks like, how top_k interacts with ranking, or when this beats other retrieval paths (e.g., web lookup). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, including a well-documented method enum, so the schema already explains all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which fits the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Search) and a named resource (the japan-company-info-free knowledge base), which is enough for an agent to know what it does. The only gap is that it gives no differentiation from siblings, though the sole sibling (get_web_ui_url) is unrelated, so this is minor.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist. The only 'when to use' information in the whole definition lives in the schema's method enum descriptions, not in the description itself.

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