search-knowledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds context about the scope of the knowledge base and filtering capability, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like return format, pagination, or potential limitations. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the primary action ('Search for information in the MongoDB Assistant knowledge base'), followed by a concise scope expansion and capability note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, content scope, and filtering capability. It doesn't explain return values, but that seems acceptable for a search tool where results are expected. No significant gaps given the annotations and schema richness.

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%, with each parameter well-explained (query, limit, dataSources). The description's mention of filtering by data source and version mirrors the schema's dataSources parameter but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the full burden.

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 the tool searches for information in the MongoDB Assistant knowledge base, explicitly listing the content types (official documentation, curated expert guidance, other resources). It distinguishes from sibling tools like find and aggregate by focusing on knowledge base resources rather than database operations, and mentions filtering by data source and version.

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 establishes clear context that this tool is for knowledge base searches, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. The schema mentions calling list-knowledge-sources to enumerate data sources, but the description itself lacks direct comparative guidance.

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