text_similarity_bm25_hybrid_scorer

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a monetary cost ('0.030 USDC on Base L2') and implicitly indicates a payment requirement, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, reversible, or any rate limits or side effects. The description offers only minimal transparency beyond the obvious computation.

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, precise sentence followed by a cost note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. The cost information is additive and relevant to invocation decisions. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

Despite being a seemingly simple computation, the description omits crucial details: the expected structure of the payload, the return value format, and any constraints (e.g., required fields, size limits). With no output schema and no parameter clarification, an agent would struggle to construct a correct call. The description is too sparse for a tool with payment requirements.

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 both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning to the parameters — it does not clarify what should be inside the 'payload' (e.g., query, documents, configuration) or how the 'paymentSignature' is used. The schema's vague 'Input parameters or JSON string payload' remains the only guidance.

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 a specific verb ('computes') and resource ('hybrid RRF scores combining BM25 sparse keyword matching with dense vector cosine similarity'). It provides a precise technical definition of what the tool does, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'deduplicate_embeddings_cosine' or 'vector_embedding_cosine_hnsw_indexer' that also involve similarity computations.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and brief description.

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