search_hybrid

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

Discloses key behavioral details: hybrid method via RRF, expansion behavior (preserves ranking, runs after recency/authority rescore). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and adequately reveals algorithmic side-effects, though it omits broader traits like idempotency or auth needs.

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?

Three sentences with no filler; core purpose is front-loaded, and the expand parameter is illustrated with a concise code example. 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 11 parameters, no output schema, and complex interplay of hybrid search, reranking, and expansion, the description covers only the expand feature and hints at recency/authority. Most parameters and the output format remain unexplained, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 0% schema coverage, only the expand parameter is explained in detail; others (query, vaults, top_k, rrf_k, exclude_paths, rerank, recency_weight, authority_weight, half_life_days, include_superseded) receive no semantic context beyond their names. This leaves most parameters ambiguous.

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?

Clearly states it performs hybrid search combining semantic and BM25 via RRF, and positions itself as best general-purpose query. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_semantic or search_text, leaving some ambiguity for tool selection.

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?

Indicates it is the best general-purpose query, providing usage context. It describes the expand feature but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives, such as specialized semantic or text-only searches.

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