search_similar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the threshold parameter and its range, but does not disclose details such as result ordering, case sensitivity, or what happens with no matches. The core behavior is clear, but additional behavioral context is limited.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff.

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 simple search tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials of purpose and parameters. However, it omits any mention of return behavior (e.g., sorting or result limits), which would be useful for an agent to set expectations. It is adequate but not exceptional.

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 provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: name is fuzzy matched, and threshold is the minimum similarity score 0.0–1.0 with a default of 0.3. This is excellent parameter documentation.

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 performs fuzzy search on entity names using trigram similarity, specifying both the resource (entity names) and the operation (fuzzy search). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_nodes by the fuzzy matching approach.

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 usage for fuzzy entity name matching but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like search_nodes or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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