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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read-only operation, so the description does not need to disclose side-effect risks. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as output format, rate limits, or error behavior beyond the basic generation of embeddings. It is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the tool's primary function and purpose. There is no filler or redundant information, and every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 one-parameter tool with a read-only annotation, the description is fairly complete. It communicates the key purpose and the input type is covered by the schema. However, it does not clarify the output format (e.g., the dimension of the vectors) or whether the result is returned directly or asynchronously, which would be useful in the absence of an output schema. Minor gaps prevent a perfect score.

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 100% coverage: the only parameter, 'text', includes a description explaining it accepts text or an array of texts. The tool description does not add any further parameter-specific semantics. Since the schema already documents the parameter well, 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 clearly states the tool generates vector embeddings, specifying the exact resource (embeddings) and the intended use case (text search and similarity comparison). This distinguishes it from sibling AI tools like ai_chat and ai_images, which have different purposes.

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 the tool: for text search and similarity tasks. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the use case is clear enough. Sibling tools are not referenced, so no explicit alternatives are given, but the context implies these are the primary scenarios.

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