search_kb_articles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses performance implications (LIKE '%keyword%' scan, 30-second timeout), runtime ID discovery with fallback, and version compatibility across GLPI 10 and 11. This goes far beyond a basic description.

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 provides actionable value: purpose, default behavior, performance warnings, version compatibility, and parameter explanations. It is well-structured with a clear parameters list and no filler.

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?

Given the tool complexity, absence of annotations, and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, performance caveats, fallback behavior, and version support. It is fully self-contained and leaves no critical gaps.

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. It explains keywords, search_content behavior and defaults, and lists range_start/range_limit as pagination. While the range parameters get minimal detail, the tool still adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with 'Search knowledge base articles by keyword,' a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_kb_articles and get_kb_article by focusing on keyword-based search rather than listing or retrieval.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool and when to enable search_content, warning about performance risks on instances without FULLTEXT indexes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool in favor of list_kb_articles.

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