get_similar_learnings

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 method of 'context and pattern matching' but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the operation is read-only, how results are sorted, whether pagination is used, or any error conditions. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation backing.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb 'Find' and the resource. There is no filler or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and any operational nuances. It only states the basic search action, omitting return format, sort order, or limitations. This under-specification leaves important gaps for a tool with four parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented. The description adds no significant meaning beyond the schema; it simply refers to 'context and pattern matching', which are already parameter descriptions. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Find' and clearly identifies the resource as 'similar learnings/feedback', with the basis 'context and pattern matching'. This conveys the core function and differentiates it from general list tools like list_learnings, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as get_relevant_knowledge.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_learnings or get_relevant_knowledge. It does not mention expected use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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