langflow_kb_search_docs

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

Annotations already declare the safe, idempotent read profile, so the description earns credit for adding non-obvious context: the corpus is English-only and result proximity scores must be interpreted (low values mean no real match). This output-semantics detail is genuinely useful and not derivable from annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the return shape, followed by the query-language caveat and the score-interpretation rule. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so reasonably: passages plus clickable section URLs plus proximity scores with a rough interpretation rule. Only the ordinal meaning of the distance values and pagination/limit behavior remain underspecified.

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 coverage is 67% and the schema already documents 'consulta_texto' and 'limite', including the English-language advice the description partly repeats. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for 'limite' or the undocumented 'response_format' enum, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Busca por significado en la documentacion de Langflow') plus what it returns ('pasajes mas cercanos, cada uno con la URL que abre su seccion exacta'). The 'preguntas conceptuales' framing implicitly separates it from the structured-search sibling langflow_kb_search_fields.

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?

Gives one usage cue ('Para preguntas conceptuales') but never names the alternative tool (search_fields for structured lookups) or states when-not-to-use, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between the two search tools.

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