search_knowledge_base

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful scope context about what content is searched, but does not disclose result behavior such as ranking, pagination, snippet format, or limitations.

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, front-loaded sentence states the verb ('search'), the breadth ('full-text'), and the resources covered with no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter search tool, the description plus read-only annotations provide enough context to invoke it. It omits result format and pagination details, but those are less critical for a simple search tool with no output 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 coverage is 100% with query already described as 'Search keyword or phrase.' The description's 'full-text' wording adds mild nuance that matching occurs across the full text of content, but it does not significantly extend beyond the 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 names a specific action ('full-text search') and a clear resource scope (case studies, architecture articles, developer documentation, platform capabilities). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tool search_docs, but the breadth of covered content makes its purpose reasonably distinct.

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 when to use the tool: when a free-form search across multiple knowledge content types is needed. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool (e.g., search_docs, get_articles) to choose instead.

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