Semantic search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, so the description builds on these with rich behavioral details: transient SQLite FTS5 indexing, stemming, BM25 ranking, lexical vs. vector semantics, and output structure (source_table, record_id, highlighted snippet). No contradiction.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by comparison, technical details, and output explanation. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or fluff.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on behavioral and usage details. It covers search scope, ranking mechanism, and output content (source_table, record_id, highlighted snippet) with grounding advice. This is complete for a search tool with 4 params and high schema coverage.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that query terms are OR-ed with prefix and stemming, and that limit returns best-first. It also contextualizes tables as a subset of full-text fields. This elevates the score above baseline.

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 states 'Relevance-ranked full-text search across all free-text health history' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search_records' by contrasting its behavior (exact substring) with semantic search's FTS5 indexing and BM25 ranking, thereby providing clear differentiation.

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 explicitly contrasts with search_records, telling when to use this tool instead. It says 'Unlike search_records (exact case-insensitive substring), this builds...' and explains that it allows querying by meaning/keywords. While it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, the comparison provides strong guidance.

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