search_pi_kb

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

Beyond readOnlyHint, the description discloses no side effects, English/KB scope, exclusions (product docs, community posts, product news), and that missing auth returns a login instruction instead of failing. It also pre-announces the result shape: match count then entries with article number.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, use cases, exclusions, auth behavior, and return shape. Key facts are front-loaded and nothing extraneous is included.

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 search tool with three params and two siblings, the description covers all decision-relevant context: when to use it, scope restrictions, auth prerequisite, output format, and how it relates to get_kb_article and list_kb_products. An output schema exists, so return details are also backed by structured info.

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 applies. The input schema already gives detailed meanings, examples, defaults, and ranges for query, products, and n_results. The description adds a small bit of context by saying n_results limits returned entries, but doesn't need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource (AVEVA Customer Support knowledge base) and lists the exact return fields: article numbers, titles, products and excerpts. It also differentiates from siblings by noting the article number is what get_kb_article needs and referencing list_kb_products.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool (support-desk material, error messages, known issues, workarounds, how-to notes) and when not to use it (conceptual or reference questions should go to product documentation). It also covers the signed-in session requirement and the fallback behavior.

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