a_semantic_search

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: it explains the hybrid nature of the search (semantic + exact matching), mentions it handles typos/variations, and describes what gets returned (code snippets with file locations and line numbers). Annotations cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent) but the description adds operational details.

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 perfectly front-loaded and concise: the first sentence states the core function, the second provides usage context with examples, and the third describes the return format. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

For a search tool with good annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and full schema coverage, the description provides solid context about behavior and output. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description does explain what gets returned. It could be more complete by mentioning limitations or performance characteristics.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions natural language queries as an example, but the schema already states 'can be natural language'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'performs intelligent hybrid code search combining semantic understanding with exact text matching' - a specific verb (performs search) and resource (code). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing semantic understanding and handling typos/variations, which none of the sibling tool names suggest.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('ideal for finding code by meaning... even with typos or variations'), giving examples like 'authentication logic' and 'database queries'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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