swsd_search_solutions

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

The description discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: search is asynchronously indexed, so recently created or updated articles may not appear for minutes or hours. It also states the return shape (compact summaries with 240-char truncated excerpts), which adds context beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations. No contradiction with 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 sentences front-load the core action and parameters, then cover the key alternative and the indexing caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information, the async-indexing note is clearly marked, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is searched, how to filter, what the return looks like, when to call an alternative, and a critical timing caveat. The routing to swsd_get_solution and mention of swsd_list_categories in the schema round out the contextual picture.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the roles of query and category in plain language but does not add meaningful parameter details beyond the schema (e.g., page, per_page are left to the schema). No parameter semantics are missing, but the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search SWSD knowledge-base solution articles.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from swsd_get_solution by noting that the search returns compact summaries while the sibling returns full HTML bodies, making the tool's role unambiguous among a large sibling list.

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 direct routing guidance: use swsd_get_solution for the full HTML body of any result, and use swsd_get_solution to verify a just-created article because of async indexing. It also explains the exact combination of parameters to pass (query and/or category), clearly separating this tool from alternatives.

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