search_vector

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

Annotations cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the search scope ('titles and link notation') but says nothing about result ordering, limits, or failure modes; this is acceptable because annotations carry the core behavioral guarantees.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. It uses no filler words, but its brevity sacrifices necessary parameter context. As pure conciseness, it is strong.

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 an output schema present, return values do not need to be described. However, the description fails to explain the purpose of project_url and query or to relate the tool to its siblings, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation. Even though the tool is simple, these omissions make the description incomplete overall.

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%, and the description does not mention either required parameter. The agent has no clue whether 'query' is a free-text string and 'project_url' is a base URL, or whether any special encoding is expected. This is a critical 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 uses a specific verb ('search') and identifies a clear resource ('Cosense titles and link notation'). The qualifier 'semantically' distinguishes it from full-text methods like search_full_text, making the purpose unambiguous. Even without naming a sibling, an agent can infer its role.

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 usage guidance is given. The only hint is 'semantic', which implies use when meaning-based matching is desired, but it does not state when to prefer this over search_full_text or how the tools complement each other. This leaves the decision to the agent’s inference.

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