Hybrid search

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which description does not contradict. Description adds output behavior details (e.g., ranks, scores) and mentions tunables, but does not discuss rate limits or auth. Useful context beyond 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?

Two paragraphs: first explains purpose, second lists parameters with example. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information. Very efficient.

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?

For a complex tool with 11 parameters and output schema, the description explains the algorithm, return columns, and provides an example. Lacks explanation of 'database' parameter (though schema covers it) and mentions non-existent 'rrf_k', but overall complete enough.

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 low (9%), so description should compensate. It lists key parameters and gives an example, but mentions 'rrf_k' which is not in the input schema, creating confusion. Example helps, but inaccuracy hurts.

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 combines vector and full-text ranking via RRF, and explicitly contrasts with pure vector and pure full-text search, distinguishing from sibling tools like vector_search and full_text_search.

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 implies usage context by explaining it bridges gaps between vector and full-text search, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative comparison. It could more directly differentiate from hybrid_bm25_vector_search.

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