find_similar_entities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the weighted scoring formula and specifies that the result includes id, name, type, period, and score. This is transparent for a similarity search tool, though it omits details like pagination or error handling.

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 paragraph that starts with the core purpose, then details the scoring, and ends with examples. It is well-structured and information-dense, though slightly verbose (4 sentences) and could be tightened.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by listing the output fields (id, nome, tipo, periodo, punteggio). The parameter coverage is complete, and the scoring algorithm is explained. No critical information appears missing for a similarity search tool.

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 each parameter already has a schema description. The tool description adds context by reiterating the score range (0.0-1.0) and noting the output includes the score, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding 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 tool finds similar historical entities and orders them by a similarity score (0.0-1.0). It breaks down the scoring weights (35% entity type, 30% temporal overlap, etc.) and gives example queries like 'quali imperi erano simili a Roma?' which differentiate it from sibling tools such as compare_entities or fuzzy_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 explicitly provides three example usage scenarios (e.g., 'trova stati paragonabili al Sacro Romano Impero'), making it clear when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the examples serve as sufficient guidance.

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