Search Troubleshooting Knowledge Base

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the search uses hybrid vector + keyword retrieval and that the results are the most relevant notes, which is useful. It does not detail output format, pagination, rate limits, or failure behavior, but none of those are critical for a simple, clearly read-only 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The main action and resource are front-loaded, the example topics are packed into a parenthetical that adds signal without bloat, and the return behavior is stated clearly.

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 search tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It covers what the tool searches, how the search works, and what it returns. The only gap is the absence of guidance on when to prefer it over the sibling 'diagnose' 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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' already described in the schema. The description reinforces the purpose of the query by mentioning 'described symptom' but does not add meaningful parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Searches') and clearly identifies the resource: a curated knowledge base of hosting/web-server troubleshooting notes. It names concrete topics and states the return value, and it is implicitly distinguishable from sibling diagnostic tools because it retrieves documented notes rather than performing live checks.

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 implies usage when the agent has a symptom description and needs relevant knowledge-base notes, and the examples give a sense of applicability. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over siblings like 'diagnose' or the specialized check tools, nor does it state any exclusions.

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