vector-search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action but doesn't describe what the tool returns (search results format), potential limitations (rate limits, index requirements), error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a complex search tool with 10 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation, though it could benefit from additional context about when to use it versus sibling tools.

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 complex vector search tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (search results format), how results are ranked, error handling, or performance expectations. The agent would need to guess about the output structure and behavioral characteristics.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, providing good documentation for all 10 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. However, it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., vector vs embedder+query alternatives) or provide usage examples that would add value beyond the schema.

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 ('Perform a vector search') and target ('in a Meilisearch index'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from the sibling 'search' tool, which appears to be a general text search function, leaving some ambiguity about when to use vector search versus regular search.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like the 'search' sibling tool. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with other search methods available in the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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