search_grouped

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses the archival exclusion, the 7-day news window, the two-group return shape, and the Markdown output format. It omits pagination/rate behavior, but for a read-only search that is a minor gap.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by scannable group bullets, then compact Args/Returns. Slightly padded by the two-paragraph use-case block, but every section earns 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?

Low complexity, one required param, output schema present (so return values need not be spelled out — though it does anyway). The description covers scope, freshness, and grouping; only failure/empty-result behavior is left unstated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it gives a query example and clarifies that limit means 'max results per group' with a default of 10 — a per-group semantic the schema alone does not convey.

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 verb+resource ('hybrid search') and explains exactly what the two result groups contain, including the exclusion rule (knowledge excludes cnyes_archive) and the news freshness window. It effectively implies the distinction from search_notes and search_news_tool by describing itself as a combined call, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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 concrete use-case context ('finance research... general knowledge work') that tells the agent when this combined query is the better pick. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. when a single-group search is sufficient), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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