search

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses fusion strategy, degradation to lexical-only, and returned fields (source path, heading, score, channels, snippet, recency), adding significant behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose, mechanism, output, and default behavior with no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers tool behavior, output structure, and degradation logic without needing to detail return values.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description's mention of 'k caps the number of hits (default 10)' mirrors the schema. It provides no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 'Hybrid retrieval over the read-only index' with specific details on fusion method and graceful degradation, distinctly separating it from siblings like hypermnesic_search.

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?

It indicates use for recalling facts, notes, and decisions via natural-language query, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct sibling comparison.

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