hl_search_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral details: no personal data is involved, returns top 20 entries, and it disclaims medical advice. It does not describe output schema or error behavior, but for a low-risk read/search tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by result scope and a necessary disclaimer. Every sentence contributes meaning and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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 simple single-parameter search tool, the description covers purpose, data source, privacy boundary, result limit, and an important safety disclaimer. The main gaps are lack of explicit sibling routing and query-format guidance, but neither is critical given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'query', and the schema provides 0% description coverage. The description indirectly defines the parameter as the search expression against the health knowledge base, but it does not clarify expected format, language, or whether natural-language phrasing is supported. The parameter is self-evident enough to make this acceptable, though not explicit.

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 ('Search') and a specific resource ('HealthLens TCM wellness knowledge base'), and adds useful context about the data source (TCM-MKG graph, classical books). It also specifies the result count (top 20), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling lookup or suggestion tools.

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 this is a general knowledge search tool and clarifies that it is not personalized medical advice, which gives some usage context. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over siblings like hl_get_wellness_article or hl_suggest_general_diet, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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