search_semantic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions that results include similarity scores and that it is semantic search, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications or mention any side effects. It also lacks details on auth, rate limits, or data scope. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 highly concise: two sentences that immediately state the core function and then provide usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is well-structured with the main purpose first and secondary guidance second.

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?

Context is complete for a search tool: it covers purpose, usage scenarios, and key outputs (similarity scores). Although there are no annotations or output schema, the description effectively compensates by explaining the nature of results and providing clear alternatives. It could mention side effects explicitly, but for a read-only search operation, the current description is sufficient.

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 the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds some context by mentioning 'raw fragment content with similarity scores' (related to threshold) and 'natural language queries in any language' (query), but it does not add new meaning for topK or output beyond the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 given full schema coverage.

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 the tool performs semantic search across knowledge fragments using embeddings, with support for natural language queries in any language. It explicitly differentiates from search_rag by noting when to use this tool (exploring coverage or raw fragments with similarity scores) versus search_rag for answering questions.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this for exploring what the knowledge base covers or when you need raw fragment content with similarity scores. Prefer search_rag over this for answering user questions.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool and names the alternative, making it easy for an agent to choose correctly.

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