search_knowledge

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses 'semantic search over curated ENS sources' and outlines the range of content types. It does not describe the result format or any limitations beyond the exclusion, but it gives a solid behavioral picture for a search tool.

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 two short paragraphs: the first describes the tool's purpose and coverage, the second gives a direct usage exclusion. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded. No redundancy or padding.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description effectively explains the domain, sources, and boundaries. It covers what content is searched, what topics are included, and what to avoid. It could mention result ordering or pagination, but that is not necessary for basic use. Overall, it is complete enough for an AI agent to select and invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%; all three parameters (query, limit, source) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds marginal value by clarifying that query refers to 'what you want to know about ENS governance, protocol, ecosystem, or history,' but this largely aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search the ENS knowledge base.' It enumerates concrete content types (governance proposals, protocol docs, blog posts, forum discussions, Farcaster casts) and explicitly states coverage (ENSv2, resolvers, subnames, historical decisions). It also distinguishes from siblings by excluding valuations, market data, and availability checks, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says when not to use it ('Do NOT use this for name valuations, market data, or availability checks') and directs the user to 'other tools.' It implies when to use it: for any ENS governance, protocol, or history question. It stops short of naming specific sibling tools, but the exclusion criteria are clear enough.

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