sort_by_relevance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core functionality (reranking by relevance) and mentions the external API (Jina Reranker), but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens when documents are empty. It adds some context about use cases but lacks operational details.

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 at three sentences, with the first sentence clearly stating the core functionality. Each sentence adds value: the first explains what the tool does, the second provides usage context, and the third gives application examples. There is minimal redundancy, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the purpose and usage context well but lacks details about behavioral aspects (e.g., performance, limitations, error cases) and output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more operational context for effective use.

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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default values, or constraints). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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', 'sort') and resources ('list of documents', 'documents'), explicitly mentioning the Jina Reranker API. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like deduplicate_strings or search_web by focusing on relevance ranking rather than deduplication or web searching.

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 the 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 sibling tools.

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