support.search_knowledge_base

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation through 'Search' but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any limitations. While it is clearly non-destructive, the absence of details about output behavior leaves room for ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, resource, and scope without any waste. Every word contributes meaning, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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?

The description adequately defines the tool's purpose but lacks details about what the search returns (e.g., summaries, IDs, full articles) or any usage limitations. Since there is no output schema, the description could be more complete by disclosing result format, though it remains minimally viable for a simple search tool.

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 describes both parameters with 100% coverage, including the category enum values. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies the verb 'Search' and the resource 'internal knowledge base', with specific scope (NovaTech products, troubleshooting guides, company policies). This distinguishes it from sibling support tools like support.reply_to_ticket and support.read_tickets, which have different purposes.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for searching knowledge base articles, making it obvious when it should be used. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the tool's sole focus on searching, so no further guidance is needed.

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