Search the organisation's knowledge base

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses two key behavioral rules: cite the returned chunk id when using a passage, and state plainly when the answer is absent rather than filling the gap. These materially shape agent behavior.

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 concise sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence carries distinct operational value: purpose, usage context, and honesty/citation requirements.

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 read-only search tool, it covers purpose, usage context, citation behavior, and missing-answer handling. It leaves some return-shape detail implied, but annotations and schema cover safety and parameter constraints.

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 only 33%, and the description adds no parameter-level detail for query or limit. It implies a direct query but does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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?

States a specific action — retrieve passages — and a clear resource — the organisation's own documentation. Framing it as a direct factual lookup distinguishes it from memory-oriented siblings.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for a direct factual lookup,' giving clear invocation context. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of full when-not guidance.

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