hybrid_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the ranking method (weighted combination) but does not disclose other behaviors like whether it is read-only, rate limits, or prerequisites (e.g., existence of FTS5 index). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description explains the hybrid search concept but does not describe the return format or prerequisites (e.g., needed indices). It lacks guidance on interpreting results, which is needed for completeness.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by explaining the rationale ('best of both worlds') but does not provide new parameter meanings beyond what the schema already describes, especially for semantic_weight.

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 'Perform hybrid search combining FTS5 keyword search and semantic search', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like semantic_search and fuzzy_search by explicitly mentioning the combination of both search types.

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 provides clear context on when to use: when you want both exact keyword matches and conceptually related content. However, it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, such as when to use semantic_search or fuzzy_search instead.

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