onyx_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds context about the type of content and that results are ranked with relevance scores, which is consistent and provides additional behavioral insight without contradicting annotations.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the action and scope. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary information.

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 semantic search tool with moderate schema coverage and annotations, the description covers essential aspects: what is searched, the type of content, and the return format (ranked documents with scores). It does not mention pagination or result structure, but given no output schema, this is acceptable. Nearly complete.

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 input schema has 67% parameter description coverage (query and document_set have descriptions, limit has only a default). The description does not elaborate on these parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it adds marginal value. A score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does moderate heavy lifting.

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 action ('semantic search'), the target resource ('AlgoChains Onyx knowledge base'), and specifies the scope with concrete counts ('400+ strategy research JSONs, 45+ blueprints, 126 skills, live bot logs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like 'search_prediction_markets' and 'search_skills' by focusing on the broader knowledge base.

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 usage for finding relevant documents but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other search tools in the sibling list). There is no mention of when not to use it or any prerequisites, leaving room for ambiguity.

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