semantic_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be needed, whether it has rate limits, what kind of results to expect, or any behavioral characteristics. 'MCP wrapper around core function' reveals nothing about how the tool behaves.

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?

While technically concise (one sentence), this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence 'MCP wrapper around core function' fails to communicate essential information and wastes the opportunity to describe the tool's purpose. True conciseness would deliver necessary information efficiently, not omit it entirely.

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 a semantic search tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but doesn't excuse the description's inadequacy), this description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what semantic search means in this context, what's being searched, what the parameters do, or when to use the tool. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for these fundamental 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 must compensate but provides zero parameter information. The description doesn't mention the 'query' or 'path' parameters at all, nor does it explain what they mean, what format they should be in, or how they affect the search. For a tool with 2 parameters (one required), this is a critical omission.

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 'MCP wrapper around core function' is tautological - it restates that this is a wrapper without specifying what the tool actually does. It provides no verb, resource, or purpose statement. The tool name 'semantic_search' suggests searching with semantic meaning, but the description fails to clarify this.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool. There are no sibling tools mentioned, but even for a standalone tool, there's no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or limitations. The description is completely silent on usage considerations.

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