search_scripture_hybrid

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It reveals the internal search mechanism (FTS5, lemmatization, vector search) but fails to state key operational traits: whether it's read-only, how results are combined or returned, any rate limits, or what happens with language-specific queries. The mechanism is described, but the observable behavior is not.

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 a single, dense sentence with no filler. The core term 'Hybrid search' is front-loaded, and the rest of the sentence efficiently enumerates the distinguishing technical features. Every word provides substantive information.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and over 25 sibling tools, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain how to choose this over search_keyword or search_semantic, does not describe the return format, and omits behavioral details an agent would need to invoke it correctly. The mechanism-oriented text cannot compensate for missing operational and decision-making context.

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 effectively 100%, with all four parameters having descriptions. The description adds useful context for the 'language' parameter (Ukrainian morphology lemmatization) and 'mode' (hybrid components), but it does not explain parameter interactions or provide format details beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('search') and identifies the resource implicitly via the tool name, then distinguishes the tool by naming its three technical components (FTS5 BM25, Ukrainian lemmatization, vector relevance). This clearly separates it from lexical-only and semantic-only siblings, though it never explicitly says 'scripture' or what the output looks like.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_keyword or search_semantic. The hybrid nature implies a use case combining lexical and semantic needs, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided.

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