Keyword search incidents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses BM25 ranking, sentence tokenization, the fields searched, the default top 25 limit, and that results include scores and matched field values. It does not cover edge cases like empty results or any permission/rate-limit behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and then the ranking and return behavior. There is no filler.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and an output schema, so the description need not explain return shape. It covers method, searched fields, and default behavior, but leaves `top_k` semantics incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that `sentence` is split into words and implies a default result count, but it never names `top_k` or explains its bounds or how it overrides the default.

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 a specific verb and resource: BM25 keyword search over incidents. It also names the ranking fields and distinguishes this search operation from siblings such as write_incident_report and list_dimension_values.

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 search context is clear, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state exclusions. Usage is implied by 'keyword search over incidents' rather than deliberately routed.

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