Fodda

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: the hybrid search approach, the 3-tier fallback (vector → keyword → all trends), and the guarantee to 'Always returns results'. This covers search methodology and reliability, though it omits details like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which are relevant for a search tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional behavioral details in a concise manner. Every sentence earns its place by explaining the search type, return content, fallback mechanism, and reliability guarantee without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (5 parameters, hybrid search) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is largely complete. It explains the search behavior and fallback, but could improve by addressing potential limitations or how it differs from sibling tools. The lack of annotations is compensated by the description's behavioral details, making it adequate for agent use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'trends and articles' as return types, which hints at the output but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most of the parameter semantics.

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 with specific verbs ('perform hybrid search') and resources ('Fodda knowledge graph'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it returns 'trends and articles matching the query' rather than individual nodes or evidence. It explicitly mentions the 3-tier fallback mechanism, which further clarifies its unique functionality.

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 through the mention of 'hybrid (vector + keyword) search' and the fallback mechanism, suggesting it's for retrieving content based on queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_node' or 'get_evidence', and does not specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and parameters.

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