search_knowledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the return shape ('source IDs and authority labels') and the scope caveat that unpublished plans are not customer policy, which affects how results should be interpreted.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and examples, then the return info, then the two caveats. Little waste, though the final clause about unpublished plans is terse enough to be slightly ambiguous.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what it searches, what it returns (IDs and authority labels), and the historical-scope trap. Nothing critical is missing, though default values and result-size behavior are unstated.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters. It partially does: 'query' is illustrated with example keywords, and 'include_historical' is tied to the old-handbook case. It still omits the default (false) and the 200-character limit, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 and resource ('Search local policy and context by keywords') and seeds it with concrete example terms, so the agent knows exactly what corpus is being queried. It is clearly distinct from the ticket-oriented siblings, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

'Old handbook requires include_historical=true' is a real conditional that tells the agent when to flip a flag, and 'unpublished plans are not customer policy' sets a scope boundary. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus drafting a KB entry or escalating, so routing guidance is only implied.

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