search_kb

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that results are abbreviated and full content lives behind a resource URI, but says nothing about result limits, ranking, or empty-match 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the follow-up instruction second. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the resource pointer covers post-search behavior. The gap is the undocumented 'category' filtering dimension, which an agent would not discover without inspecting the schema.

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 carries the burden — and it does not. The 'category' filter (with its billing/bug/account/how_to enum) is never mentioned, and no meaning is added for 'query' beyond the obvious. The agent must open the schema to learn a filterable dimension exists.

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 verb and resource ('Search knowledge base articles'), which is inherently distinct from the ticket/customer siblings. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like search_tickets, so the differentiation must be inferred from the resource noun.

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 next-step guidance ('Read the full article with the helpdesk://kb/{slug} resource'), which implies search returns partial results and full content requires a follow-up. It offers no when-to-use vs when-not-to-use framing and no mention of alternatives, so usage is only implied.

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