search_knowledge

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 adds valuable traits: uses DuckDuckGo, targets Reddit threads, and importantly states that pagination is not supported. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent anticipate limitations, though it does not cover rate limits or output specifics (which the output schema may handle).

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 three concise, front-loaded sentences: purpose, mechanism, limitation. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler. It is easy to scan and immediately conveys the tool's role and constraints.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description adds essential behavioral context (web-search backend, pagination limitation) and workflow placement (STEP 1). It is slightly incomplete in not providing more guidance on parameter interplay, but overall it gives an AI agent enough to select and invoke the tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. None of the four parameters (query, limit, subreddit, time_filter) are explained in the context of this broad web search. The schema provides defaults/enums, but the description fails to clarify how subreddit filtering works with DuckDuckGo or how time_filter behaves in a web-search context.

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 states the tool finds factual threads or technical explanations, using a broad web-search (DuckDuckGo) to locate Reddit threads that Reddit's own search may miss. It explicitly positions itself as 'STEP 1: FOUNDATION SEARCH,' distinguishing its role from sibling tools focused on opinions, discussions, and trends.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: as a foundational search for facts/technical explanations, with a stated advantage over Reddit's native search. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, relying on the implied contrast with opinion/trend tools.

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