research_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the search algorithm and returned fields, but does not state whether the tool modifies data, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 two concise sentences: the first explains the algorithm and output, the second provides usage context. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without 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?

The description covers purpose, usage, algorithm, and return fields. Without an output schema, it adequately describes the tool. However, it lacks details on pagination, sorting, or handling of empty results, which would enhance completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter guidance beyond what the schema provides; it mentions query is 'natural-language' and limit has defaults, but does not elaborate on category usage or how parameters affect results.

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 specifies a hybrid search across the 'celiums knowledge corpus' using BM25, semantic kNN, and reciprocal rank fusion, and lists the returned fields. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'research_synthesize' and 'research_export' by stating 'Use to locate evidence before synthesize.'

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use to locate evidence before synthesize,' indicating the context for this tool. While it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, the sibling list provides some implicit differentiation.

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