semantic_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the return format ('Returns ranked items with a similarity score') and a key behavioral limitation ('Never returns agent contact details'). It also defines the search scope across specific authored guides, adding context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured: first sentence states the purpose and scope, second gives usage guidance with examples, third states return behavior and a limitation. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (ranked items with similarity score). It covers scope, when to use, and exclusions. The description fully equips an agent to decide whether and how to invoke the tool, even for a search tool with a relatively simple interface.

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 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds example queries that illustrate the 'q' parameter, but it does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter documentation.

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's function: 'Semantic / conceptual vector search across the Moroccan catalogue AND the authored guides'. It uses a specific verb ('search') and explicitly names the resources. It also distinguishes itself from exact-filter search tools by saying it handles queries 'that don't map to exact filters', which differentiates it from siblings like search_listings.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use for fuzzy / lifestyle / thesis queries that don't map to exact filters', with concrete examples. It also implicitly defines when not to use (when queries map to exact filters) and notes a limitation ('Never returns agent contact details'), giving clear usage context.

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