find_similar_interactions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are 'real' (as opposed to synthetic) examples and are bounded, which is useful context, but 'marking semantic/lexical coverage' is opaque and never explained.

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?

A single tight sentence with no padding and the retrieval action front-loaded. It is efficient, though brevity here shades into under-specification rather than being purely a virtue.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with five undocumented parameters, no usage guidance, and an unexplained 'coverage' concept, the definition leaves too much for an agent to infer before calling correctly.

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% across five parameters, so the schema documents nothing. The description only obliquely gestures at 'limit' via 'bounded' and says nothing about message, person, context, or platform, leaving the agent to guess how inputs shape the search.

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 verb 'Return' and resource 'incoming/reply examples' indicate it retrieves interaction examples, and 'bounded' hints at a limit. However, the purpose is muddied by the cryptic clause 'marking semantic/lexical coverage,' and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_messages, which sounds like an obvious alternative.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus search_messages, get_writing_context, or the style/profile siblings. No prerequisites, no exclusion conditions, no routing guidance of any kind.

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