kb_search

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes indexing on symptom strings and expected answers. Does not disclose limitations or side effects, but provides solid behavioral context for a knowledge search tool.

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?

Description is moderately sized, front-loaded with main purpose. Sentences earn their place, though could be slightly tighter. Use of line breaks improves readability.

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's complexity and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: when to use, what to pass, what answers to get. Missing explicit output format is offset by output schema. Complete enough for agent decision.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'query' parameter well (pass error text or task). However, 'limit' parameter is not mentioned; its default and purpose are left to schema. Partial but adequate for the critical parameter.

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 clearly states the tool searches accumulated Workiva API knowledge, with strong verb 'search' and specific resource 'Workiva API knowledge'. It distinguishes from siblings like kb_list and kb_get by emphasizing use for unfamiliar work and error recovery.

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?

Explicit instructions: use before attempting unfamiliar work and when calls fail unexpectedly. Guidance on what to pass (error text or task description) and what answers to expect. No alternatives named but context is clear.

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