search_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (doc_id, title, version, classification, citation) plus a hard constraint that top_k is capped at 10. It stops short of noting permission requirements or whether unapproved content is silently excluded versus erroring, which matters for a knowledge-retrieval tool.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; purpose comes first and the constraint is placed at the end where it is easy to scan. Slightly clipped phrasing ('version, classification and a citation') costs a little clarity but no words are wasted.

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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and the key limit. The remaining gap is query semantics and the absence of any retrieval-failure behavior, which keeps it just short of complete.

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 for both parameters. It explains only top_k, and only partially — the cap of 10 is useful but it never states that top_k is the number of results returned, and the query parameter's expected syntax or matching behavior is never described.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Search approved internal knowledge') with a meaningful scope qualifier ('approved'). It implicitly separates itself from get_document by promising 'snippets' rather than full documents, but never names that sibling or states the distinction explicitly.

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 use case is implied by 'snippets' and the approved-content scope, so an agent can infer this is for lookup rather than document retrieval. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of get_document or list_sources as alternatives.

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