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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the non-destructive search behavior and the return format (snippets with file paths and scores), which is transparent about what the tool does. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a read-only search tool this is reasonably adequate.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place: 'Semantic search' tells the mode, 'Keycloak repository and documentation' identifies scope, and the second sentence describes the output. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is low-complexity with an output schema present, so the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, it lacks usage guidance (when to choose this over siblings) and parameter semantics, making it only partially complete for an agent. It adequately states what it does but not enough surrounding context for confident invocation in all scenarios.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no parameter semantics. It does not explain what 'query' should contain or how 'top_k' behaves beyond the schema's default value. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to guess at expected input formats.

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 performs 'semantic search' over a specific resource ('Keycloak repository and documentation') and describes the output (snippets with file paths and scores). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like explain_keycloak_component or analyze_keycloak_deployment, which focus on explanation and analysis.

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 the tool (when searching for relevant code or documentation snippets), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that explain or reference tools should be used for explanations rather than raw search. This is implied but not explicit.

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