search_solution_articles

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 only states that it searches by keyword but does not disclose whether it searches titles, bodies, or metadata, nor does it mention result format, pagination, or matching behavior. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action. However, the 'Args:' section largely duplicates what the schema already provides, adding little new value. Still, it is economical and easy to scan.

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 is too sparse for a tool with no annotations. It doesn't explain return structure (though output schema exists), search scope, or any filtering/pagination behavior. Sibling tools are not referenced, so the agent lacks context on what distinct functionality this provides.

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?

The description adds the meaning 'Text to search for in articles' for search_term, which is absent from the bare schema (just type and title). This clarifies the parameter's purpose, but it does not provide examples, format constraints, or search behavior details. Given low schema coverage, this is minimal compensation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' with resource 'solution articles' and qualifier 'by keyword', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_solution_articles (list all) and get_solution_article_by_id (by ID). The scope is explicit and matches the tool's name.

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 'by keyword' implies usage for keyword-based search, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like get_solution_articles or get_solution_article_by_id. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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