Search content

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 genuinely new context about how ranking works (BM25 index for corpus docs, same tokenizer over catalog titles/excerpts), but says nothing about result shape, scoring fields, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then mechanics, then parameters. The BM25/tokenizer sentence is denser than strictly necessary but earns its place by explaining why catalog titles and corpus documents are searched differently.

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?

Six parameters, three enums, and no output schema, so the description should ideally sketch what comes back (ranked items, scores, hit count). It covers the input side well but leaves return values entirely unaddressed; annotations at least carry the read-only/idempotent profile.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the schema documents band, limit, query, and figure but leaves type and subject bare. The description compensates by naming all four optional filters and restating the default limit of 10, adding the key fact that these narrow rather than require.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Rank WisdomForge items for a query.' That clearly separates it from the get_*/list_* siblings, which retrieve known items rather than rank by relevance. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not differentiated by comparison.

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 (have a free-text query, optionally narrow by band/subject/type/figure) but never says when to prefer this over recommend_for_learner or list_by_age_band. No exclusions or preconditions are given, so the agent must infer the routing.

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