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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is semantic (not keyword) and that results include source excerpts with name, page and score, which is useful, but it omits any note on limits, empty-result behavior, or scope constraints. Return shape is already covered by the output schema.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core capability and usage guidance are front-loaded, and the return description comes last where it belongs.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the main intent and rough return format. The unaddressed 'limit' parameter and absence of any exclusion guidance keep it from being fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description implies the query is a topical question but never mentions the 'limit' parameter, its default, or what it controls, leaving a real gap for an agent tuning result count.

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?

States a specific verb ('semantically search') and resource ('Sortition knowledge base'), and enumerates the topic domain it covers. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_document_page or list_documents, but the purpose is 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this for questions about sortition, citizens' assemblies, citizens' chambers, democratic institutions and related reforms,' giving clear context for invocation. It stops short of naming when-not to use it or which sibling to prefer for non-topical lookups.

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