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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the use of bge-m3 embeddings, fusion with keyword search, and return format (snippets with entity type and similarity). However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, nor does it mention rate limits, pagination, or error behavior. It adds useful technical context but is not fully transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and immediately providing concrete examples. The technical detail about embeddings is relevant but could be trimmed; overall it is efficient with no fluff.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, language support, technical approach, and return format. It lacks details on limit behavior, empty-result handling, and does not explicitly confirm read-only nature. It is adequate but has gaps that could affect an agent's confidence in edge cases.

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 67% (query and type have descriptions, limit does not). The description adds value by giving example queries and clarifying the type filter scope. However, the limit parameter is not explained anywhere, and the description does not compensate for that missing schema coverage.

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 it is an AI-powered semantic search across all Azul CR content types (businesses, jobs, events, specials), with explicit examples of natural language queries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_jobs or get_business which are specific getters, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 it (semantic, natural language queries, multi-language support with CR voseo) and implies it is for cross-content search. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, leaving some room for interpretation.

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