search_fuzzy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the matching mechanism (trigram), typo tolerance, and that this is a fallback rather than a primary search. It omits result ordering and any performance/cost characteristics, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, zero waste. The capability statement comes first and the restrictive usage rule second, which is the right order for an agent deciding whether to call.

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?

A four-parameter read-only search with full schema documentation and no output schema needs exactly this much: what it does, when to prefer it, and how matching behaves. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and every parameter including min_similarity and file_type is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's typo example adds a little intuition about the query parameter but no syntax or format beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific mechanism and resource: trigram-based fuzzy search that tolerates typos. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling search_documents, so an agent can distinguish the two without inspecting either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit gating rule ('USE THIS ONLY when search_documents finds nothing or the search term may be misspelled') plus a concrete motivating example ('lantren' finds 'lantern'). Both the when and the fallback alternative are named.

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