search_rag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful detail that the search is a 'semantic + keyword hybrid', which indicates the underlying mechanism. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or potential side effects. Since it is a read-only search, the risk is low, but additional context would improve transparency.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 the low complexity of the tool (2 simple parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides adequate context. It states the core function and method, though it could mention what the response contains (e.g., relevant documents, scores). Still, for a simple search tool, it is nearly complete.

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 schema already covers both parameters (query and limit) with clear descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search the RAG corpus using semantic + keyword hybrid search'. It specifies the verb (Search), the resource (RAG corpus), and the method (hybrid search), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_corpus_documents that list documents rather than search semantically.

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 the tool is used for searching the RAG corpus, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as list_corpus_documents or rag_stats. It does not mention exclusions or specific scenarios, leaving usage context implicit.

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