analyze_text

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

The readOnlyHint already protects against mutating behavior, and the description adds new detail by explaining that the tool tokenizes the field's indexed text and shows how that mapping differs from a user-provided search term. This is meaningful behavioral information that also aligns with the safe profile and does not contradict any annotation.

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 zero filler: the first states the function plainly, the second gives a focused usage context. It front-loads the core action and then gives the precise diagnostic trigger.

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 output schema and requested annotations already cover result formatting and safety, while the description gives the key diagnostic use case. However, it leaves ambiguity about how optional parameters (field, index, analyzer) interact or what happens when only `text' is provided, which could trip up an agent needing to debug a particular field.

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 clarify parameters, but it only hints at 'text' and 'field' through the phrase 'the field's analyzer.' It does not explain 'index' or how to choose among analyzer/field/index, nor whether they are optional and have defaults.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('Run text through an analyzer', 'see the resulting tokens') and positions it against a concrete scenario: 'when a match query returns nothing.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that run queries, count documents, or inspect health.

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?

It explicitly names a decisive trigger ('when a match query returns nothing') and explains what the tool clarifies, giving an agent an actionable decision rule. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative siblings, but the one condition provided is strong and specific.

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