find_similar

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description reinforces this with 'Finds' and mentions the native similarity API, but adds little new behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as pagination, limits behavior, or response characteristics.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and then gives the intended use case. Every part earn its place with no unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple, has a clear output schema, and annotations already cover safety. The description sufficiently explains why the agent would call it, though it may still wish for a bit more detail on required parameters given the 0% schema description coverage.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the intent behind 'point_id' ('given point', 'specific chunk') but provides no explanation for 'collection' or 'limit', leaving those parameters underspecified for the agent.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Finds points similar to a given point by ID.' This makes the operation clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly vector-based sibling tools like 'recommend' or 'search' beyond the mention of point ID.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this to explore more like this starting from a specific chunk the user is looking at.' This tells the agent when to select this tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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