Search Help Center Articles

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds critical context: search is on metadata only, not body, and returns total count. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, highly efficient. First sentence states purpose and scope; second provides usage hint and return info. No redundant words.

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 simple search tool with well-documented schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and key limitation (no body). Missing explicit mention of pagination via page/per_page, but schema covers that. Without output schema, mentioning total count helps.

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?

All 4 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds only that locale filtering is supported, but does not enhance beyond what the schema already provides for query, per_page, and page parameters.

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 states it performs full-text search on Help Center articles, specifying it searches metadata only (not body). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_article (retrieves full content) and list_articles (likely basic listing without full-text search).

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?

Explicitly directs users to use get_article for full content, providing a clear when-to-use alternative. However, does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when body content is needed) or compare with list_articles for non-search listing scenarios.

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