quipu_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context: keyword mode's prerequisite server config and backfilled index, the absence of an embedding-provider dependency, and the admission contract ('REST results are diagnostic candidates; native MCP renders admitted context only'). Gaps remain around failure/refusal behavior and result/candidate shape, but this is more than annotation echo.

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?

Front-loaded correctly with the mode choice, and only four sentences, but the prose is dense with undeclared jargon ('context_results', 'insufficient_context', 'quipu-context/v1') that is never tied to a parameter or return field an agent can act on. The final two sentences cost attention without clear operational payoff.

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 26-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately frames mode selection and one hard prerequisite, and the schema covers the rest of the knobs. It does not explain the overall call workflow (query vs embedding vs anchor vs structured_query precedence) or the returned context payload, which matters given there is no output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already explains alpha, rrf_k, decay, anchor_mode, structured_query and the rest. The description adds one genuinely non-schema fact (keyword mode requires query text, even though query is not marked required in the schema), but otherwise does not enrich parameter meaning.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb+resource (search) and enumerates the three retrieval modes (semantic default, FTS5 keyword, hybrid fusion), which is concrete and actionable. It never differentiates from the many search-ish siblings (quipu_search_query, quipu_hybrid_search, quipu_unified_search, quipu_search_nodes, quipu_search_facts), so an agent still cannot tell which search entry point to pick.

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?

It gives mode-level guidance (semantic is the default; keyword is opt-in and needs an enabled, backfilled index and no embedding provider), which implies when each mode is viable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to alternative tools, and no statement of what to do if the keyword index is not backfilled.

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