retrieval_quality

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds only that the dashboard covers specific metrics. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., auth, rate limits) are disclosed, but the safety profile is covered.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and specific details. No wasted words.

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 output schema exists (not shown but indicated true), the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and key metrics. It is complete for an agent to decide to invoke the tool.

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 sole parameter 'days_back' is fully described in the schema (default 30, min 1, max 365). The description says 'over the past N days' which adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 retrieves a retrieval quality dashboard for a corpus over a past period, listing specific metrics (search hit rates, zero-result queries, top search terms, relevance signals). It is distinct from siblings like 'search_knowledge' or 'deep_search' which focus on retrieving content rather than quality analysis.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The context implies usage for quality assessment, but with 28 siblings, explicit guidance would help differentiate, e.g., from 'knowledge_health' or 'get_stats'.

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