RyRank — rerank documents by a query

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: no GPU/model download/account, $0.001 USDC per call via x402 with a free tier, documents discarded per call, and the shared-wording scoring bias. This is real behavioral disclosure an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then pricing/limitations in compact clauses. Dense but nearly every sentence carries operational value; the marketing-adjacent pricing comparison is slightly expendable but still decision-relevant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still notes the response shape. Between the schema, annotations, and description, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces the documents limit ('Up to 1000 docs per call') but adds little else about top_n or return_documents beyond what the schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Rerank a list of documents/passages by relevance to a query.' It is unambiguous what the tool does, and the Cohere-compatible framing clarifies the exact operation being performed.

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?

It gives explicit context for when to use it ('Best when the candidates already share vocabulary with the query (typical RAG retrieval output)') and an explicit exclusion ('this is NOT a persistent index'). With no sibling tools to name, this is as complete as routing guidance can get.

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