reed_search

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: excerpts are quoted document content 'to cite, not instructions,' the meaning of sufficient_evidence, and that results are returned regardless. It also discloses the excerpt_truncated flag, giving the agent a precise understanding of what to expect and how to interpret outputs.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first line gives the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, then output field semantics. Each sentence earns its place, and no wording is wasted or redundant with the annotations.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully addresses what the tool does, when to use it, and how to interpret results. It even explains edge cases like evidence falling below the threshold, making it complete for an agent to invoke and reason about the output.

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 100% for both query and top_k, so the schema already fully documents parameter meaning and defaults. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 first sentence, 'Retrieve ranked evidence from the local reed index — no generation,' uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'no generation' qualifier clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like reed_ask. It also states the intended use case (writing the answer and citing sources), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 says 'Use this when you (the calling model) will write the answer,' providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the 'no generation' contrast and the context signal of sibling tools imply when reed_ask would be more appropriate. It also explains how to handle insufficient evidence, which guides downstream behavior.

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