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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behaviors: returns chunks with citations, projectName fallback logic, and workspace config precedence. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or output structure, but for a search tool this is substantial coverage.

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?

Three sentences with zero filler. The purpose, output, and edge-case behavior are front-loaded, and every sentence provides necessary information.

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?

For a 5-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output type, and the trickiest parameter behavior (projectName). It could explicitly explain topK or pathPrefix, but those are already documented in the schema, so the description is largely complete.

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 80%, and the description adds significant nuance for projectName—default project behavior, fallback to all projects, and VSCode config override. It also clarifies query semantics through 'semantic search'. topK lacks a schema description and is not explained here, but the high coverage plus projectName detail supports a 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search across documents using semantic search') and identifies the output form ('relevant chunks with citations'). It distinguishes the tool from list/get siblings by emphasizing semantic search, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 gives clear usage context: use the returned chunks to answer the user's question directly, and it explains project-selection behavior (API key default, fallback to all projects, and VSCode config precedence). It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name sibling alternatives, preventing a 5.

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