Search: rehydrate

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a non-destructive mutation rather than a read. The description adds a genuinely useful operational detail, the admin-only requirement for whole-index rehydration, but says nothing about cost, duration, or whether the index is unavailable while rehydrating. Adding auth context beyond the annotations earns a 3.

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?

Two tight sentences with the operation front-loaded and the scope/authorization caveat appended. Nothing is wasted, though the phrasing is terse enough that it reads more like a stub than a fully structured definition.

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?

For a one-parameter maintenance tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient: it says what happens and who may do it. It omits the recovery/rebuild semantics of 'rehydrate' and any performance or concurrency expectations, leaving an agent without enough to judge impact.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Omit to operate on the entire index'), which is essentially the same statement the description makes. Per the calibration rule, 100% coverage sets the baseline at 3; the description adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb (Rehydrate) and resource (the search index), so an agent can grasp the operation immediately. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent maintenance/query siblings such as search_purge, search_query, or search_similar, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a scope rule (omit ENTITY to rehydrate everything) and an authorization constraint (admin only), which implies when each form is usable. It never states when to choose rehydrate over search_purge or the other search tools, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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