semantic_search

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

Even with no annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: uses Vertex AI text-embedding-005 and cosine similarity, finds conceptually related content without exact matches, and specifies optional filters. It doesn't mention error cases or performance limitations, but the key behavioral characteristics are transparent.

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 dense but well-structured, with every sentence providing essential information: mechanism, use cases, differentiation from sibling, and parameter constraints. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 output schema exists, the description needn't detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, technology, use cases, distinctions from alternatives, and all parameter ranges/behaviors, making it complete for selection and invocation.

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 0%, and the description carries the full burden. It explains all parameter semantics: since/until are ISO-8601 dates (optional), host_email filters to one rep's calls, limit caps results 1–20 (default 10). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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?

Description clearly identifies a specific verb+resource: semantic search across call transcript chunks. It explicitly contrasts with search_transcripts (FTS keyword matching), distinguishing its purpose from its sibling tool.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use this when the user asks to find calls about a topic or concept' with concrete examples. It also names the alternative tool and explains the key difference, making the choice between semantic_search and search_transcripts unambiguous.

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