search

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that output includes raw chunks and similarity scores, and that no synthesized answer is produced. It implies a read-only retrieval operation. Lacks explicit mention of authentication or side effects, but given nature of tool, this is sufficient.

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 sentences, first sentence front-loads primary action and key characteristics, second provides usage guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

Tool has output schema, so return value details are covered. Description provides complete guidance for a simple retrieval tool: what it does, when to use, and how it differs from sibling. No missing information.

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 has 100% description coverage, baseline 3. Description adds meaning by calling results 'raw top-k source chunks' and mentioning 'similarity scores', which provides context beyond schema field 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?

Description clearly states 'Retrieve the raw top-k source chunks matching a QUERY' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'ask' by specifying that it returns raw chunks without synthesized answer, providing clear differentiation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when you want the underlying documents themselves.' and provides alternative: 'To get a written, cited answer instead, use `ask`.' No ambiguity.

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