sort_by_relevance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool uses the Jina Reranker API, which implies external service calls and potential rate limits or authentication needs, but does not explicitly disclose these behavioral traits. The description is accurate but lacks details on performance, errors, or output format.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core functionality. Each subsequent sentence adds useful context without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured with zero waste.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the API involved, but could improve by detailing output format or error handling. Without an output schema, some gaps remain in understanding the return values.

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%, providing clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool's purpose involves ranking documents against a query, but does not elaborate on parameter usage, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema already states.

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 with specific verbs ('rerank a list of documents by relevance') and resources ('documents'), using the Jina Reranker API. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on document relevance ranking rather than search, extraction, or other operations listed among siblings.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('when you have multiple documents and want to sort them by how well they match a specific query or topic') and gives examples of use cases ('document retrieval, content filtering, or finding the most relevant information from a collection'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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