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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the search scope (fields searched, filter options) but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or behavior when no results are found. It is a search tool, so read-only is implied, but not fully transparent.

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 description is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact Args block. Each sentence adds value, no filler. The list format is scannable and precisely documents all six parameters and defaults.

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?

The description covers purpose, search scope, and every parameter with values/defaults. An output schema exists, so return format need not be described. The only gap is explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, but overall it is complete for a search tool.

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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section thoroughly explains every parameter: query text fields, domain slug format, valid KEDL levels, confidence range, type allowed values, and default limit. This fully compensates for the schema gap and adds critical meaning.

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 starts with 'Search the knowledge base with optional filters', which uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('knowledge base'). It further clarifies scope by listing searched fields (titles, summaries, content, tags, parameters, open questions), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_node or get_domain_stats.

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 clearly implies the tool is for full-text search with filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools like get_domain_stats and read_node are not mentioned, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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