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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: per-call pricing ($0.002 USDC), the payment rails (x402 on Base/Solana/Arc), that failed calls are free, and the critical caveat that scores are only comparable within a single call. Annotations only declare read-only/open-world, so these additions are genuinely valuable.

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?

Four compact sentences in a logical order: what it does, when to use it, the score-comparability caveat, then pricing. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return fields need not be re-explained, and the description still covers cost, payment, failure behavior, and score semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and both params are documented there (query <=500 chars, 1-50 documents <=2000 chars each). The description restates the document cap but adds no new syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (orders/reranks) and resource (documents) plus the engine used (BGE reranker) and the exact returned fields (rank, index, score). It is immediately distinguishable from embedding or chunking siblings.

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?

"Use it after a keyword or vector search to pick the best few" gives a clear trigger context and workflow position. It does not name an alternative tool explicitly, but the when-to-use guidance is strong and unambiguous.

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