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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that results include a cosine-similarity score and that a status field of 'unavailable' indicates the vector index is not built, with a fallback. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or ordering, but the key behavioral traits for a search tool are covered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence packs essential details (score, status, fallback) without redundancy. Every clause earns its place, making it precise and highly scannable.

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 the semantic nature, multi-language capability, a worked example, the similarity score field, the unavailable status, and the fallback to `search`. With an output schema present, return values need not be repeated. This is a complete yet concise description for a tool of this complexity.

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 already provides descriptions for `query` and `daftar`, covering 67% of parameters. The description reinforces the meaning-based semantic of `query` with an example, but adds no syntax or edge-case details. `limit` is self-explanatory. Given high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 performs semantic search ('find the beyts closest in MEANING'), specifies it works in ANY language, and provides a concrete example ('feeling separated from your origin' → M1:1). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search' which presumably match exact words, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool: 'when you have a theme, feeling, or idea rather than exact Persian words'. It also directly names an alternative and provides a fallback condition: if status='unavailable', fall back to `search`. This is clear, actionable, and differentiates from siblings.

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