search_intelligence

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 only mentions semantic vector search in LanceDB, hinting at similarity-based matching, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, whether there is pagination, or any other side effects.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, the mention of 'LanceDB' is an implementation detail that may not help an agent select or invoke the tool, though it does not waste significant space.

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 tool with three parameters and no annotation coverage, the description is too thin. It omits parameter semantics and usage guidance, leaving the agent to infer those from the schema and sibling names. The output schema exists, so return values may be covered elsewhere, but the overall context is incomplete.

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% and the description does not add any meaning to the parameters (query, limit, category). Since the schema itself has only type/default information, the description should explain how these parameters affect the search, but it provides no such information.

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 a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('stored intelligence records') and distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying 'semantic vector search in LanceDB.' This clearly separates it from list_intelligence_records, which likely does non-semantic listing.

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 the tool is for semantic vector search rather than exact or structural queries, but it provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, and does not mention any exclusions or routing to sibling tools. The usage context is only implied by the semantic search description.

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