search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the use of vector similarity and the default structured output. However, it does not mention potential edge cases, response fields, or whether the operation is read-only—though that can be reasonably inferred from 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 exceptionally concise and well-structured. It front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence, then provides two brief supporting sentences about scope and output format. No unnecessary information is present.

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?

The description is adequate for a fairly simple search tool, explaining scope and output default. However, without an output schema, it should describe what the structured result contains (e.g., matches, scores, IDs). The vague phrase 'structured data' leaves a notable gap.

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 already provides 100% coverage, describing all three parameters with defaults and types. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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: 'Perform semantic search across all indexed content.' It specifies the resource (indexed codebases/documents) and the method (vector similarity). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'discover,' so it cannot earn a 5.

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—when you need semantically similar matches across indexed content—but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'discover.' No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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