search_articles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not say this is a read-only operation, or describe pagination behavior, result caps, or what a result contains. It only restates the search action, leaving the agent to infer everything about side effects and output shape.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded before the bulleted examples, and every line earns its place. It is slightly padded by three examples that illustrate essentially the same plain-keyword pattern twice.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more work on behavior and result shape, and it should route between this and get_article. It is adequate for a simple paged search but leaves those gaps unfilled.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the examples genuinely add value by demonstrating query syntax including the 'label:feature_name' operator, which is not expressed anywhere in the schema. Page/per_page defaults are already documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat them.

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+resource: searching Zendesk Help Center articles, and clarifies the resource is the knowledge base. This clearly separates it from search_tickets, get_article, and get_tickets_by_tag, so an agent can pick it 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?

The examples imply how to phrase queries and even show a label: filter, which is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over get_article for a known article, or how it relates to search_feature_feedback.

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