search_hse_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the tool searches current knowledge and returns grounded answers, which signals a synthesis/retrieval behavior. It does not mention limitations, citation behavior, or permissions, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states verb, resource, and purpose with no filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 core call is simple (one required query), and an output schema exists to document return values. The main gaps are undocumented parameter semantics for limit and site_ids and the lack of explicit routing guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 only reinforces the query field through 'Search'. Limit and site_ids are not explained, leaving the agent to guess what values are acceptable and how they affect results.

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 names a specific action ('Search'), a clear resource ('current HSE procedures and incident lessons'), and the intended result ('grounded answers'). This differentiates it from the sibling tools search_procedures and search_incidents, which target narrower sources.

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 phrase 'for grounded answers' implies the tool is meant for question-answering over HSE knowledge, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over search_procedures or search_incidents, nor when not to use it.

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