search_kcs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It usefully discloses a default filter (documentKind and accessState) and the return type, but it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior beyond the start parameter, error handling, or rate limits. This is moderate disclosure but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by compact Args and Returns sections, ending with a crucial default-filter caveat. It is concise, though the Args list partially duplicates schema field names and defaults, and the Returns section could arguably be inferred from the purpose statement.

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 moderately complex tool with three simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, parameter explanations, return shape, and a key default-filter behavior. It does not explain total result counts, ordering, or relationship to get_kcs, but covers the essentials needed for typical invocation.

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 compensate. It defines all three parameters: query as the search string, rows as the result count with default 50, and start as the pagination index with default 0. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only lists titles and defaults. It lacks examples or constraints like maximum rows, so it is not a 5.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Search for Red Hat KCS Solutions and return a list with Solution IDs.' This clearly states the tool's function and its output, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_kcs (which likely retrieves a single KCS solution) and search_cases (for cases).

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 phrase 'Search for Red Hat KCS Solutions' gives a clear context for when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It only implies usage for query-based solution discovery, without saying 'use get_kcs for a single solution' or 'use search_cases for case search.'

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