swsd_search_solutions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, but the description adds critical behavioral traits: async indexing (articles may not appear for minutes/hours) and that results are compact summaries with 240-character excerpts. This goes beyond annotations to disclose important limitations.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then parameter specifics, output format, sibling reference, and an important caveat. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 4 parameters (0 required), an output schema exists, and the tool's complexity is moderate, the description covers all necessary aspects: search functionality, output format, pagination hints, related tools, and a crucial async caveat. It is fully informative.

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 100%, giving baseline 3. The description adds conversational context (e.g., 'Empirically the canonical search parameter') and cross-references to swsd_list_categories, which adds value beyond the schema definitions.

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 searches SWSD knowledge-base solution articles, specifies parameters for free-text and category filtering, and distinguishes from swsd_get_solution for full HTML retrieval. It also mentions the async indexing behavior, 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 tells when to use this tool (search solutions) and when to use swsd_get_solution (for full HTML). It also advises to use swsd_list_categories for category validation and to verify just-created articles with swsd_get_solution, providing clear guidance on alternatives.

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