Search knowledge

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the search strategy and fallback order (exact ID > alias > lexical), which is genuinely useful. But it omits other behavior an agent would need: result format, result limits, match highlighting, and how strictly 'exact id' matching is applied.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the search strategy (exact ID > alias > lexical) followed by the scope. No filler, no redundant restating of the name, and every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns)Skip; it does not. It also doesn't explain limit behavior or whether results are scored/deduplicated. However, for a read-only search tool, the scope and matching behavior are the most important context and those are covered.

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 coverage is low (only query is described in the schema). The description partially compensates by enumerating the searchable kinds and the search precedence, but it never explains the limit parameter's semantics (e.g., default number of results, maximum, pagination). It adds less than it could for the uncovered 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('search') with a clear resource and scope, listing the eight knowledge domains it spans. It is immediately distinguishable from the get_* siblings, which retrieve a single known item, because this tool is explicitly a cross-domain lookup with a defined search strategy.

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 implies the tool is for cross-cutting lookup across domains, especially when you may not know the exact item type or ID. However, it never states when to prefer this over a sibling get_* tool, and it does not mention whether to use it for alias-based lookup or only as a last resort.

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