search_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose two meaningful behavioral traits: only published articles are searched, and grounding/escalation is required when results are empty. However, it omits result limits/pagination, whether search is keyword vs semantic, and any permission or rate-limit context.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then usage policy. The return-fields sentence partially duplicates the existing output schema, which is the only mild redundancy.

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?

Purpose, grounding policy, and escalation fallback are all covered, and an output schema exists so return values need little explanation. The notable gap is the undocumented 'top' parameter and the absence of any note on result limits or empty-result handling details.

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 explain both parameters. It adds meaning for 'query' (keywords extracted from the customer's problem, not a full question), but 'top' is never mentioned, leaving the result-count control entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search published Knowledge Articles') plus the input source ('keywords from the customer's problem'). Sibling tools are all email/contact/escalation operations, so there is no ambiguity about which tool retrieves knowledge.

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?

Gives an explicit usage policy: answer only from results, and if nothing relevant is returned, escalate rather than guess — which names the fallback action matching the escalate_to_human sibling. Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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