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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the kNN vector similarity mechanism and the fact that results may not share exact keywords, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose details like result ordering, pagination, or potential latency, which would be valuable for a semantic search tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second paragraph explains the mechanism. It's slightly redundant with the title and the schema's section description, but overall it's efficient and well-structured.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description is fairly complete. It explains the semantic search mechanism, when to use it, and the section parameter's behavior. It could mention result ordering or how it differs from search_elastic, but for a read-only search tool with a rich schema, this is adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the conceptual framing of 'query' as a natural language query and the section parameter's guidance about keeping 'all' for questions, which is helpful. But the description doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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's purpose: finding WindowsForum discussions by meaning rather than exact words, using embedding-based semantic search. It explicitly distinguishes itself from keyword-based search by emphasizing natural-language questions and paraphrased topics, which differentiates it from sibling tools like search, search_elastic, and search_mysql.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: best for natural language questions and conceptual searches. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the contrast with exact-keyword search is implied. The section parameter description adds practical guidance on when to use specific values, which helps an agent decide.

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