Search Help Center Articles

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that it searches metadata only (not body) and returns total count. This aligns with annotations and provides extra behavioral context beyond what annotations give, without contradiction.

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 sentences: first states the main action and scope, second adds a key alternative and features. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence adds value without waste.

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?

Without an output schema, the description mentions 'returns total count' which helps. It covers locale filtering and specifies metadata-only search. It could detail the response structure slightly, but it is fairly complete for a search tool with 4 parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions locale filtering and returns total count, which are already in schema or are output behavior. No new parameter meaning beyond schema, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool as a full-text search across Help Center articles, specifies it searches only metadata (not body), and distinguishes it from get_article for full content. This is specific and directly distinguishes from siblings like list_articles.

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 tells when to use (searching articles by text in metadata) and points to an alternative (get_article for full content). It also mentions locale filtering. It could slightly expand on when not to use compared to list_articles, but the guidance is clear and helpful.

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