corpus_search

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: deduplication of overlapping windows, limiting source domination, and returning titles plus timestamp URLs. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand how results are processed and what to expect.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Semantic search within a corpus') and then efficiently adds key behavioral details. There is no wasted wording, and every clause contributes meaningful information.

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 stating the return format (titles plus timestamp URLs). It also mentions deduplication and source domination limits, which gives a good sense of behavior. However, it does not elaborate on the meaning of 'source domination' or any edge cases, but this is acceptable for a straightforward 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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions (query, top_k, corpus_id), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 performs semantic search within a corpus, using 'search' as the verb and 'corpus' as the resource. It further distinguishes itself by noting deduplication, source domination limits, and the specific output format (titles plus timestamp URLs), which differentiates it from sibling YouTube search and corpus management tools.

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 phrase 'Semantic search within a corpus' implies the usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools have distinct names and purposes, but the description does not directly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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