search_kb

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does a fair job: it discloses accent-insensitive matching, the unit of the returned blocks, that only the best matches come back, and that section ids are included. It leaves out the max_results cap/default behaviour and anything about result volume, which matters for a search tool returning an unbounded-looking list.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the search scope and the get_section hand-off front-loaded before the lang detail. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, matching semantics, lang values and the next step. The only real gap is the unmentioned max_results, which matters for controlling result size.

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 has to compensate. It defines lang ('en' or 'pt'), which the schema does not (no enum), and clarifies that query is a keyword rather than natural language, but max_results is never mentioned and its default of 10 is only discoverable from 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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the exact index granularity: 'Keyword search over paragraphs, list items and table rows (accent-insensitive)'. It also names the follow-up sibling (get_section) for context, so an agent can distinguish it from list_sections and the lookup_* tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent onward ('read the section with get_section for context'), which is real when-to-use guidance for the next step. It does not state when to prefer search_kb over list_sections or the lookup_terminal/lookup_register siblings, so the coverage is clear but not exhaustive.

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