find_similar

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds useful context by specifying how similarity is determined ('by title and subject terms') and that it searches 'across all sources,' which implies no user, workspace, or source filtering. No contradictions with annotations, but no additional detail beyond that.

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 sentence with no filler. The core action and key modifiers are front-loaded, and every word adds information. It is appropriately concise without sacrificing necessary meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The tool is simple and annotations cover its safety profile. However, the description leaves parameter semantics entirely unaddressed and does not provide enough context for an agent to confidently call it correctly, especially regarding what 'limit' does.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It never mentions the 'id' parameter or the 'limit' parameter, nor does it explain what they mean. An agent must infer that 'a given one' refers to the required id and cannot know what limit controls. This is a significant gap.

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 states a specific function: finding records similar to a given one, with explicit criteria ('by title and subject terms') and scope ('across all sources'). It is not a tautology and gives a clear sense of what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as search_reports or lookup, 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 implies usage: when you have a record id and want similar records, use this tool. It does not provide any explicit when-not-to-use guidance or point to alternatives among the sibling tools. This is enough to infer context but lacks direct routing to alternatives.

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