semantic_search_themes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying mechanism (bge-m3 embeddings, cosine similarity) and specifies the return fields, which gives the agent a clear expectation of behavior. It does not mention rate limits, errors, or non-determinism, but for a search operation the provided information is solid.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: one states what it does, one gives when to use it, and one lists the returned fields. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler or 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?

For a read-only search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage criteria, and return content. It misses edge cases like no results, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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% and both parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description reinforces the 'natural-language' intent for the query parameter but does not add new syntax, formatting, or behavioral details beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 'Semantic search across the theme marketplace', which clearly states the action (semantic search) and resource (theme marketplace). The specificity is further reinforced by a concrete example and the list of returned fields, distinguishing it from simple listing tools like list_themes.

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 says 'Use when the brief is a natural-language description... not just keywords', providing a clear when-to-use condition and an implicit when-not-to-use (keyword queries). However, it does not name an alternative tool or exclude other search tools explicitly, so it lacks full alternative guidance.

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