search_knowledge

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

The description declares 'Read-only. No side effects.' and explains the hybrid search behavior, reranking, and the effect of parameters like hybrid_alpha and min_score. It also clarifies that results are chunks, not full documents. Given no annotations are provided, the description fully covers behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured with clear sections: summary line, side-effect note, Args, Returns, and Usage. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value. No 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?

The description explains the return format, parameter behaviors, and usage context. With an output schema present, the return description is adequate. It covers all necessary aspects for a search tool, including how to adjust for precision vs recall.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides detailed explanations for all 6 parameters, including recommended values, examples, and usage advice (e.g., call list_categories for category filter, use hybrid_alpha for exact terms vs conceptual queries). This adds significant meaning beyond the input schema.

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 it is a hybrid search combining semantic search and BM25 keyword search with cross-encoder reranking. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_similar and get_document, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('use for any topic or keyword lookup') and when to use alternatives ('Prefer search_similar() when you already have a reference document', 'Prefer get_document() when you already know the exact filepath'). This provides clear guidance.

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