search_glossary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it returns a list with relevance scores or error dict, but does not disclose read-only behavior, authentication needs, or any side effects. For a search tool, it lacks detail on potential limitations like result format or edge cases.

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 concise and structured with Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose and uses bullet points, though the headers add minimal overhead. Almost every sentence adds value.

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 appropriately summarizes return values. It covers the key aspects: query handling, optional filters, and result format. However, it lacks details on pagination, sorting, or behavior for empty results, which are minor gaps.

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 fully compensates. It clearly explains 'query' as natural language search, 'domain' as optional filter, and 'limit' with default and max value, adding significant 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 'Semantic search for glossary entries,' specifying both the action (semantic search) and the resource (glossary entries). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_facts and search_notes, and implies a difference from exact-match tools like lookup_term.

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 implies use for semantic search but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lookup_term or list_glossary. No when-not or context for exclusion is given.

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