Search the support knowledge base

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only (readOnlyHint=true) and closed-world (openWorldHint=false). The description adds meaningful context by specifying that the search is limited to published articles and matches on title, keywords, and body tokens, which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies what the agent can expect.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No filler or redundant content, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers the search scope (published articles, matching fields) but omits details like result ordering or pagination, which are likely covered by the output schema. Sufficient for a search tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema has three parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides useful semantics for the 'query' parameter (searching by title, keywords, body tokens) but does not explain 'limit' or 'category'. This is partial compensation; the agent can infer limit/category defaults and enums from the schema.

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 'Search published Markdown articles by title, keywords and body tokens' clearly identifies the action (search), resource (published Markdown articles), and search scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like knowledge_get_article, which retrieves a specific article, and knowledge_create_draft, which creates content.

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 for finding articles but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as knowledge_get_article or mention when to use search vs. retrieval. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the context implied rather than explicit.

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