ai_search_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, case sensitivity, or whether it returns full content or just metadata. For a read/search operation, more detail is expected.

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 a single, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and immediately states the resource and key constraint, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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 that the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and the description is minimal, the context is incomplete. It lacks information about the search methodology, expected response structure (despite an output schema existing), and any limitations. The description does not fully equip an agent to invoke the tool correctly in varied scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to search_expression by specifying 'exact name match', but it does not elaborate on knowledge_base_id or max_results. Since the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, this is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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 'Search content in a knowledge base by exact name match' clearly identifies the action (search), the resource (content in a knowledge base), and a key constraint (exact name match). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ai_query_assistant, ai_list_knowledge_bases, and ai_search_quick_responses.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when to prefer other search tools such as search_contacts or qic_search. The implied usage is only that it is for exact name matching, but no alternatives are referenced.

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