system_one_find

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it reveals an implementation trait ('without embeddings') and what the caller should expect back ('ranked candidates and an existence judgment'). It does not cover failure modes or edge cases, but the annotation safety profile lowers the bar.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the core verb 'Find' and the key scoping phrase 'supplied candidates.' Every part adds useful information: the operation, the non-embedding constraint, the ranking behavior, and the existence judgment.

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, the description at least names the two expected outputs, which is helpful. Still, it does not define what 'existence judgment' means, how 'ranked candidates' are ordered, or how top_k interacts with results. The description is adequate for basic routing but not fully complete for a tool with no output schema.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It implicitly covers 'query' and 'candidates' but says nothing about the optional 'top_k' parameter or the purpose of candidate 'id' and 'text' fields. With three parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is a meaningful gap.

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 identifies a specific verb-resource pair: 'Find which supplied candidates answer a query' and adds a distinctive output, 'ranked candidates and an existence judgment.' It also mentions 'without embeddings,' which helps separate it from embedding-based sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling like system_one_rerank, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'without embeddings' implies a use case where embeddings are unavailable or undesired, giving some contextual guidance. But the description does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as system_one_rerank or system_one_compare, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage is implied rather than clearly routed.

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