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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent search. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it returns up to 5 matching guides, each with a short answer and a URL to cite. It does not describe ranking, empty-result handling, or auth/rate limits, but the core output behavior is disclosed.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by a compact scope list and a return-behavior sentence. Despite the long topic list, every phrase contributes to understanding what can be searched and what comes back. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 simple one-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: topical scope, output count, and return format. No output schema exists, but the description explains the response shape well enough for correct invocation.

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 the single topic parameter already includes examples, so the schema carries most of the burden. The description broadens the apparent topic domain by listing supported guide areas, which is helpful context, but it does not add syntax, formatting, or query-construction guidance beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: it searches SaleHistory's guides, and it enumerates the topic areas covered. It is distinguishable from data-returning siblings like get_sold_comps and get_pricing because the resource is explicitly guides rather than comps or pricing data. It does not explicitly differentiate from what_are_sold_comps, which is the only remaining ambiguity.

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 implies usage by listing guide topics, so an agent can infer that it should be used for tutorial or explanatory questions about sold comps, categories, APIs, and pricing workflows. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of get_api_docs, get_pricing, get_sold_comps, or what_are_sold_comps. There are no exclusions or routing instructions.

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