find_similar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return format ('Dict with success, results list') and notes that the source itself is excluded, which is useful. However, it does not describe error handling, ordering, or side effects—though the read-only nature is apparent from the verb 'find'.

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 well-structured, with a clear one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary prose and front-loads the primary purpose. 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 tool's moderate complexity (four parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, defaults, and return structure. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus semantic_search, but is otherwise complete for a similarity lookup 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 input schema already covers all parameters, but the description adds significant semantics: it enumerates valid values for source_type ('item', 'decision', 'update'), documents defaults for limit (5) and threshold (0.0), and explains the threshold range (0.0-1.0). This exceeds the schema's minimal 'parameter' descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Find items similar to a given item, decision, or update.' It identifies a specific verb ('find') and resource (similar items) with explicit source types, which distinguishes it from generic search tools like 'search' and 'semantic_search'.

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 usage by defining the tool's action, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'search' or 'semantic_search'. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving usage guidance minimal.

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