Search Hybrid

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context about the hybrid retrieval method and RRF ranking, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral insight.

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 highly concise with just two sentences, no fluff, and front-loaded with the key purpose. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, hybrid search with RRF) and the presence of an output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks guidance on parameter usage, configuration, and expected behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional schema knowledge.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not clarify any parameter meanings. Despite having many parameters (query, project_path, glob, etc.), the description offers no guidance on their use, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 it performs lexical+semantic retrieval with RRF ranking, distinguishing it from exact keyword searches. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other search sibling tools like localnest_search_code, which could be seen as a minor gap.

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 says 'best for queries where concepts and context matter as much as exact keywords,' providing a clear use case. But it does not mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternative tools, leaving the agent without explicit guidance for different scenarios.

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