search_knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It does reveal the output shape (ranked sections with scores), yet it omits any statement about side-effects, authentication needs, or read-only status. For a search tool, the lack of such details is not alarming, but the coverage is only minimal.

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 only two sentences, front-loading purpose and a clear usage constraint. The wording is direct and free of redundant detail. It loses a small amount because the final set of consumers is directive rather than purely behavioral, but it is still appropriately sized.

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?

With an output schema already present, the description need not detail return values. However, it leaves the meanings of `top_k` and `category` unclear, and with no annotations the agent relies entirely on the scarce description. The tool is simple enough that this is acceptable, but it is not fully self-sufficient.

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 is the only place to define parameters. While the action 'search the support knowledge base' is clear, it never explains what `query` should contain, how `top_k` controls results, or how `category` filters them. Therefore two of three parameters are effectively undefined.

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 states a specific verb ('search') and a resource ('support knowledge base'), and adds output details ('ranked sections with a score'). It clearly stands apart from the sibling tools like get_customer, get_transactions, list_tickets, and create_ticket, since this is the only knowledge search tool.

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 phrase 'state policies only from these' is an implied rule for when to trust the results, and the tool name obviously points to knowledge-base lookups. But it doesn't explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives or when it should not be used, leaving the selection decision partly to inference.

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