search_hybrid

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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful ranking behavior context, such as RRF fusion and support for semantic plus exact/ID matches, but does not mention pagination, result behavior, or how filters interact with the search.

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?

One focused, front-loaded sentence communicates the core algorithm, the tool's default status, and the key use case. Every phrase earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 read-only tool with an output schema, the description captures purpose, algorithm, and default routing—enough for a basic invocation. However, with many search siblings and unclear param semantics, the description is not fully complete for choosing between search, rerank, multi-query, or find_similar in edge cases.

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 explain 'collection', 'filters', or 'limit' semantics. It indirectly clarifies that 'query' is interpreted both semantically and as exact keyword/ID matches, which is useful but not enough to fully compensate for the 4 undocumented parameters.

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 names the operation ('search'), the mechanism ('Dense + sparse hybrid search with native RRF fusion'), and positions it as the recommended default search tool. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools even without naming them.

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 clear usage context: use it as the default for most queries because it covers both semantic and exact keyword/ID matching. It does not explicitly spell out when not to use it or which alternative to pick, so it stops short of a 5.

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