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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the core behavior: it searches both couplet-level and whole-ghazal vectors, meaning a matching ghazal can be found even without a matching couplet. It also reveals the status='unavailable' edge case and fallback. This goes well beyond a basic description.

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 four sentences, each contributing unique value: purpose, behavior detail, follow-up tool mention, and fallback. No fluff or repetition, and key information is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, usage context, behavioral nuance, return preview, status handling, and alternative tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain full return structure. This is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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 is 50% (query has description, limit does not). The description enriches the required query parameter by defining it as a theme, feeling, or idea in any language. It does not mention limit, but the schema already provides default/min/max constraints, making it self-explanatory. Overall, the core parameter semantics are well covered.

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 this is a semantic search over the Divan-e Shams ghazals, with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling search_divan by explicitly naming it as a fallback, and the return format (ghazals with couplet preview and cosine score) is concrete.

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?

It explicitly describes when to use it ('given a theme, feeling, or idea in ANY language') and provides an alternative ('fall back to search_divan') when the index is unavailable. This is direct usage guidance with an exclusion condition.

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