find_similar_active_entries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does add meaningful context: results are restricted to active/published entries and are explicitly candidates, not authority to merge. It does not mention matching thresholds or pagination, but the core read-only retrieval behavior and output boundary are disclosed.

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, and the primary scope ('only among currently active/published entries') is front-loaded. Every phrase adds distinct value.

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 tool with three optional parameters and a complex nested FeedEntry object, the description leaves call construction underspecified. The output schema may cover return values, but the agent still lacks enough information about valid query combinations and the meaning of limit to call the tool confidently.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the prose never explains the roles of text, entry, or limit. An agent cannot tell whether text and entry are alternatives, whether entry must contain certain fields, or what limit controls beyond the schema's default. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 ('Find') and a clear resource ('semantic candidates ... among currently active/published entries'), and it explicitly distinguishes the tool's output from a merge decision. This makes it easy to tell apart from sibling tools like list_active_entries, which lists entries without semantic ranking.

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 no guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings such as list_active_entries or get_entry. The only usage signal is implicit: use it when you need semantic candidates. It never states what scenarios call for this tool or when an alternative would be more appropriate.

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