search_hybrid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'best-effort' but does not clarify implications (e.g., result consistency, rate limits). There is no mention of side effects or whether the tool is read-only, which is insufficient for a search tool with multiple sub-types.

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 extremely concise with two sentences and one note. It front-loads the purpose and provides usage guidance without wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (combining three search types) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It lacks discussion of error handling, result ordering, or how the hybrid approach differs from individual search tools.

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 description adds meaning to the 'service' parameter ('selects the index (name or id); omit for the default service'), but does not elaborate on 'query' or 'limit' beyond what the schema provides. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 'Best-effort combined search: symbols + text + semantic for one service', specifying the tool's function as a multi-layer search. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like search_symbol, search_text, and search_semantic.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Prefer this when you're not sure which layer fits', indicating the use case. It also explains the service parameter's role. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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