rag_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully reveals that the query is embedded internally and that no precomputed vector is required. It does not state side-effect safety, ordering, or failure behavior, but 'Search documents' reasonably implies a non-mutating read operation.

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 three short sentences with no filler, and it is well front-loaded: mechanism first, use case second, operational detail last. Every sentence 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?

The USE WHEN rule and output schema cover the core calling intent, and the tool is simple enough that query plus optional limit define the invocation. However, with three sibling tools, the description never explains when to choose rag_search over search_knowledge or combined_search, leaving a selection gap.

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?

The description adds crucial meaning to the query parameter by clarifying it is a plain-text string and that the tool performs the embedding internally. The remaining limit parameter is self-explanatory from its name and default, so the 0% schema coverage is largely compensated for.

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 states the action ('Search documents') and mechanism ('vector similarity') and ties it to a concrete need ('context, explanations, or source documents'). It does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling search_knowledge, so an agent may still be unsure which search tool to choose.

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?

A labeled USE WHEN condition is present and tells the agent the kind of request that fits this tool. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so the guidance is clear but incomplete.

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