wb_semantic_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only local catalog lookup but says nothing about ranking, result size, pagination, or what happens when facets conflict. 'Semantic' is never explained, so the key behavioral trait is opaque.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the verb, resource and searchable facets with no filler. Nothing is wasted, and the scoping information arrives first.

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 9-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, no annotations and no output schema, this is thin. Required parameters and result-shape expectations go unaddressed, so an agent cannot construct a confident call from this definition alone.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must do the work. It names role, style, material, condition and query ('depot-path text') but leaves the required 'database' parameter, plus variant, category and limit, entirely undefined in both schema and prose.

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 ('Search') and resource ('the local asset catalog') plus the facets searched (role/style/material/condition and depot-path text). An agent can tell it is a read-style catalog lookup, though nothing distinguishes it from siblings like wb_assets_search or wb_find.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives despite the presence of wb_assets_search and wb_find in the sibling list. The agent must infer selection criteria entirely on its own.

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