search_similar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fuzzy matching algorithm and the meaning of the threshold parameter. Although it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or edge cases, the 'fuzzy search' wording implies a non-destructive operation, and the threshold semantics add valuable context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded, with the core functionality in the first line and parameter details neatly listed. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words or repetition of schema content.

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?

The tool is a simple search with two parameters and an output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. The description covers the search method, parameter semantics, and default threshold, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description provides clear explanations for both parameters: 'name' is the fuzzy-matched search term and 'threshold' is the minimum similarity score with a default and range. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 performs a fuzzy search for entity names using trigram similarity, specifying the verb (search), resource (entity names), and method (trigram similarity). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_nodes, which likely performs exact 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 for fuzzy name matching but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No when-not or named alternatives are given, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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