search_index_index_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses BM25 scoring and that field restricts search, but omits behaviors like what happens when field is null, effect of top_n, or search case-sensitivity. Some transparency but incomplete.

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?

Two concise sentences front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without wasted words. Structure is optimal for quick parsing.

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 no annotations and low schema coverage, the description covers the basics but fails to explain top_n behavior or provide fallback defaults for omitted parameters. An output schema exists, so return values are not required. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaning only for 'field' (restricts to one field). Other parameters (name, query, top_n) lack any added semantics beyond their titles. Inadequate for 4 parameters.

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 searches an index with a keyword query and returns top matching documents with BM25 score. It mentions the field parameter. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_index_index_list or search_search, which limits clarity.

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 gives minimal usage guidance: 'field restricts to one field' hints at when to use the parameter. No when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use advice is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the name.

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