search_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ranking behavior (BM25), the ordering by relevance, and the exact return structure (dicts with id, source, created_at, customer_segment, text, rating, score). It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the read-only search nature is clear.

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 concise and front-loaded with a one-line summary, followed by structured argument documentation and a clear return description. Every sentence adds value with no 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 description is complete for a read-only search tool. It covers all parameters, filters, ranking behavior, and return format. Even with an output schema present, the description adds necessary context about BM25 scoring and optional rating field.

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 the description must compensate. It provides detailed meaning for all four parameters: query with a concrete example, source and segment with explicit allowed values, and limit with its default and meaning. This is a strong compensation for the bare schema.

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 a specific verb ('search'), resource ('feedback text'), and method ('ranked with BM25'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_themes, get_theme, and severity_summary, which focus on themes and severity rather than free-text search.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose alone implies search tasks, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. Siblings are not directly search-related, but the description could still note that this is the only tool for free-text feedback search.

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