kms_intelligent_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely fails. It never discloses that this is a read operation, that the 'intelligent query analysis' and 'routing' likely incur extra latency/cost versus plain search, what 'full content access' actually returns (full documents vs. snippets), or how results are ordered and paged.

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?

Only two sentences, so it is short, but the second sentence ('enhanced middleware for optimal search strategy selection') largely restates the first's 'intelligent... routing' and carries no actionable information. Not bloated, but not earning its words either.

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 4-parameter tool with a nested filters object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits the essentials: sibling differentiation, the cost/latency implication of the analysis step, and the response shape. It describes implementation machinery rather than what the agent needs to call it correctly.

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% and the nested filters object is documented field-by-field, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, e.g. it does not explain what includeAnalysis=true changes about the response.

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 verb+resource is identifiable (a search over KMS content), but the differentiating content is marketing jargon: 'advanced', 'intelligent', 'optimal'. It never states concretely what it does that kms_search does not, so an agent cannot distinguish the two siblings from the text alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (kms_search, kms_multimodal_search). 'Advanced' vaguely hints at complex queries but the choice between siblings is left entirely to inference.

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