search_articles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'by relevance' and the GET method, implying a read-only search operation, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or discuss rate limits or other behavioral traits. Some transparency is provided, but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences: the first identifies the action and endpoint, the second provides usage guidance. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is simple, an output schema exists, and parameters are reasonably self-explanatory. The description sufficiently supports selection and invocation, though it lacks explicit mention of pagination or ordering behavior, which is not critical given the schema.

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 67% (query and locale have descriptions), and the description adds 'by relevance' which relates to query semantics. However, it does not detail per_page or locale behavior beyond the schema. With moderate schema coverage, the description offers minimal additional parameter meaning.

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 a specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource as 'Help Center knowledge base articles', distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_tickets and search_users. The HTTP GET endpoint further clarifies the exact API.

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 gives explicit context: 'Use before answering questions that the knowledge base may already cover.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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