semantic-select

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses ranking behavior ('Results rank by similarity') and the ORDER BY restriction, but says nothing about permissions, cost, field auto-detection failure modes, or result limits.

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-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then uses a compact parameter list. Every line earns its place, though the parenthetical '(advanced)' adds little.

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 parameter list compensates for the empty schema descriptions. The main missing piece is guidance on choosing among the search-oriented siblings.

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 compensate, and it does: all four parameters are explained, including the optional field's auto-detection and a concrete vector_provider format example (model@host:port). Minor gap on explicitly flagging which parameters are required versus optional.

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 compound operation (vector similarity + SQL filtering) and names the sibling it extends ('Extends sql-select with semantic search'), so an agent can distinguish it from sql-select and vector-select without opening a schema.

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?

Clears the path from sql-select by explaining the extension, and gives a concrete exclusion ('ORDER BY is not allowed in query'). It does not say when to prefer this over vector-select or search, so sibling routing is only partially covered.

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