semantic_search_themes

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses the retrieval mechanism (bge-m3 embeddings, cosine similarity) and the return shape, which is valuable because no output schema exists. It omits operational details such as rate limits or latency, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences: mechanism, selection criterion with example, and return fields. The most decision-relevant information (what it is and when to use it) is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (theme_id, score, name, preview_url, thumbnail, description_vi/en), and annotations cover the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain, such as how the score should be interpreted or how results order against limit.

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% and both parameters (query, limit with default/max) are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the intended query style but adds no syntax, format, or constraint information beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Semantic search across the theme marketplace') and even names the embedding model and similarity metric, so the agent knows exactly what kind of retrieval this is. It implies but never names the keyword-based siblings (list_themes, list_template_themes), so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use condition ('when the brief is a natural-language description of industry + features') with a vivid example, and contrasts it against keyword-style input. The alternative tool an agent should use for keyword lookups is left implicit rather than named.

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