Search Knowledge Graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering core behavioral traits. The description adds context about the data source and entity types but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination method, result size limits, or rate limits beyond what annotations and schema provide.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, resource, and scope with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded and every element serves a clear function.

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 existence of an output schema (mentioned in context signals) and comprehensive parameter descriptions, the description is adequate for a search tool. However, it lacks explanations of the query language (DQL), result formatting, or notes on open-world behavior, leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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?

All four parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no new semantic value for parameters. The mention of entity types in the description mirrors the 'type' enum, offering no additional insights.

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 verb 'Search', the specific resource 'Diffbot Knowledge Graph', and the entity types ('products, organizations, people, and places'), making the purpose unmistakable. It includes the scope ('billions of structured entities') which further distinguishes it from generic search tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'knowledge.wikidata.search' or 'diffbot.articles.extract'. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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