search_multi_query

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral nuance: the caller supplies the reformulations, several queries are executed, and hybrid results are fused into a single ranking. This goes beyond purely restating the operation.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states how it behaves, the second gives a concrete use case with examples. Everything earned its place.

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?

With an output schema present, read-only annotations, and the core parameter (queries) explained, the description is mostly complete for an agent deciding to invoke it. The main gap is around filters and how they interact with the multiple query variants, but the overall tool usage is understandable.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It usefully clarifies the 'queries' parameter as LLM-supplied reformulations and shows a combined result, but it does not explain 'collection', 'limit' scope, or 'filters'/format semantics or how filters apply across multiple queries at any extension.

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 operation: run multiple query reformulations and fuse their hybrid results into one ranking. This clearly differentiates it from single-query sibling tools like search and search_hybrid.

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?

Explicitly gives a selection rationale: 'Use this when a single query phrasing might miss relevant chunks — e.g. ambiguous or broad questions.' It lacks an explicit list of when-not-to-use or naming of alternative tools, so it does not reach the full 5.

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