search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful defaults (q defaults to *:*, start 0, rows 10, fl omitted returns default set) and that fq is applied without affecting score, but says nothing about auth/permissions, error behavior on a missing collection, or the read-only nature of the call. Adequate but not rich given zero annotation coverage.

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?

Well front-loaded with a one-line summary, then a mechanism note, a parameter list, and two concrete examples. Every element earns its place given the 0% schema coverage, though the parameter list restates schema field names where brief inline glosses would have sufficed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers defaults, mechanism, and parameter semantics. It is nearly complete, missing only failure/edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid collection or malformed Lucene query) which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it does: every one of the 8 parameters is explained with its Solr equivalent (q, fq, fl) and semantics such as 'applied without affecting score' and the sort clause format. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search') plus its capabilities (filtering, faceting, sorting, pagination) and names the underlying mechanism ('Solr's /select handler using Lucene syntax'). This clearly separates it from vector-select and semantic-select siblings, which would not use Lucene syntax.

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?

Explicitly positions itself as 'the preferred tool for natural-language questions about document content', which gives the agent a selection rule and implicitly contrasts with semantic-select/vector-select. However, it never names those alternatives or states when NOT to use this tool, so the routing guidance is directional but incomplete.

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