recall_where

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It explains the fused nature (vector + ColumnStore predicates), the filter format, and result ordering ('Most similar first'). It does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation or mention pagination, but the core behavior is transparent enough for an agent.

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?

The description is extremely concise: three sentences that front-load the key concept ('Fused recall'), immediately followed by filter format and usage example. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (vector + structured constraints) and that an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the AND combining logic, gives a concrete example, and mentions ordering. It does not detail response format (covered by output schema) or edge cases, but covers the essential context for selection and invocation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the filter structure as {field, op, value} with supported ops and an example date window, which is more intuitive than the formal schema definition. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 states it performs 'fused recall' combining vector semantic search with structured metadata predicates, explicitly mentioning support for ranges and comparisons beyond equality. It distinguishes from sibling 'recall' by specifying the structured filter capability, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use for time-windowed or numeric-scoped recall' with an example (facts about a topic with `ts` in a date range). It implies that for equality-only filters, a simpler tool like 'recall' might be appropriate, but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare to all siblings like 'recall_fused'.

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