semantic-search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'semantic embeddings' and 'everyday language' queries, it doesn't describe important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, rate limits, error conditions, or how results are ranked. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage guidelines without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information about what the tool does and when to use it.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description doesn't need to explain output. However, for a search tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about behavioral aspects and parameter usage. The description covers the basic purpose and usage context adequately but leaves gaps in behavioral transparency and parameter semantics.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema. The description mentions 'queries' which relates to the 'query' parameter, but doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter or provide any additional semantic context about parameter usage, formats, or constraints. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adds minimal value beyond what's inferred from parameter names.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Natural language search using semantic embeddings.' It specifies the verb (search) and resource (semantic embeddings), and distinguishes it from exact keyword matching. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'keywords-for', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: 'Use this for queries in everyday language when exact keywords might not match.' This gives practical guidance on its intended use case. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, which would be needed for a score of 5.

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