semantic_search_activities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the pure vector nature and the shallow, similarity-ranked results, but it does not explicitly state that this is read-only, nor does it clarify what "shallow rows" include or whether any side effects exist. Some safety information is left to inference from the word "search."

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, immediately contrasts the tool with search_activities, and then gives the usage condition and result type. Every sentence earns its place.

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 description does a strong job on purpose and usage context, and it names the correct sibling alternative. However, without an output schema or parameter-level description, an agent still has to infer the meaning of start/end/limit and what "shallow rows" actually contain. This is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for the missing parameter meanings. It provides semantic context for the query concept but does not explain start, end, or limit. The parameter names are suggestive, but the description adds no concrete details beyond what the schema already shows.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Pure vector similarity search over activities." It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_activities by noting that the sibling blends vector and keyword matching, and it describes the output as "shallow rows ranked by similarity."

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 gives explicit usage guidance: reach for this only when search_activities returns nothing useful and the query is purely conceptual with no reliable keywords. It names the alternative and provides a clear exclusion condition, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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