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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a significant side effect: changing config re-indexes every document from scratch in the background. It also explains the conditional requirements for the 'openai-compatible' provider and the role of the secret as a bearer. Missing details like reversibility and return value are minor given the absence of annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with a colon-delimited list of provider options and a side-effect note. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, uses no filler, and every clause contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 conditional parameters and background reindex side effect, the description covers the essential operational context: provider choices, required fields for non-default providers, and the automatic reindex trigger. It omits the return value (no output schema exists) and doesn't mention prerequisites like setting up the tenant secret, but these are secondary to the core configuration task.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds clarifying context by tying provider 'openai-compatible' to required endpoint, model, and secret, and noting dims is 'for documentation purposes'. However, it mostly restates schema text and does not add deeper semantics such as value formats or examples, so a baseline score of 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 states a clear verb ('Configure') and a specific resource ('this tenant's search index provider'), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on provider selection rather than indexing operations like host.docs.reindex or host.docs.put. It also explicitly introduces the two provider options and the default, making the tool's role 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 implies when to use this tool by explaining that changing config triggers reindexing, which clarifies the relationship with manual reindex tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions for choosing them, leaving some inference to the agent. The context around provider options and the automatic reindex side effect provides practical guidance.

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