everything_search_typo

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

Annotations already cover read-only safety, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: ranking is page-local, all matches on the page are returned, and pagination is driven by next_candidate_offset. These are non-obvious traits an agent could easily get wrong. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: core purpose, exclusion, page-local behavioral trait, and pagination instruction. There is no filler, no repetition of schema defaults, and the most important fact is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what the response contains (filenames, scores, or both), but it does not. It also fails to explain candidate_query's strange 'file:' default or the filter semantics, and it doesn't route to the closely related fuzzy search sibling. Core ranking and pagination behavior is covered, but meaningful gaps remain for a 7-parameter tool.

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 compensate. It does add meaning for threshold (the 0..100 scale), candidate_limit (the 'bounded page'), and candidate_offset (pagination). However, candidate_query (default 'file:') is unexplained and the filters object's semantics are left entirely to the schema, which itself provides only metadata-level 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?

States a specific verb ('Rank'), resource ('a bounded page of filenames'), and method ('SequenceMatcher similarity (0..100)'). The 'Not semantic search' clause adds a useful exclusion. However, it does not name the closest sibling (everything_search_fuzzy) or explain how this differs from it, so sibling differentiation is partial.

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 offers one exclusion ('Not semantic search') which tells the agent what this is not, but it gives no positive when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives among the 11 siblings. The intended use case (typo-tolerant fuzzy filename ranking) must be inferred from the tool name and the SequenceMatcher mention.

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