search_knowledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the hybrid search method and reranking, which adds useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 a front-loaded purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. It's appropriately sized, with each sentence adding value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, hybrid search) and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining the search method and parameters. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values, but it briefly mentions the JSON structure. It could improve by addressing usage context or sibling differentiation.

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 fully. It provides detailed semantics for all parameters: 'query' as search text, 'max_results' with default and max values, 'category' with enumerated options, and 'hybrid_alpha' with a clear explanation of its balancing role. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 the tool performs 'Hybrid search combining semantic search + BM25 keyword search with cross-encoder reranking,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_similar' by specifying its hybrid nature and reranking, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all search-related siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_similar' or other search-related siblings. It lists parameters but offers no context on optimal use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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