Search policy documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a semantic search operation and states the return type: 'Returns ranked excerpts with document ids.' This is sufficient for a read-only search tool, though it omits details like pagination or result limits.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is compact, clear, and free of redundancy.

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?

For a search tool with a well-described schema, the description covers the purpose, the use case, and the return value. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by explicitly mentioning that results are ranked excerpts with document ids.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing that the query is natural-language based, which the schema already states.

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 'Semantic search over policy contracts, riders, underwriting guidelines and disclosure documents', identifying both the verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like lookup_product_rules and get_application_status by specifying that this tool answers questions about policy content.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this to answer questions about what a policy says.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the sibling names and the stated purpose make the intended use clear.

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