gb_cyber_search_guidance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a full-text search and returns specific fields, but it does not mention pagination, default limit behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. As a search tool, most agents assume read-only, but additional behavioral details (e.g., rate limits) are absent.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and output.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview but omits details like result ordering, pagination, or handling of empty queries. It describes the return fields but not the structure. Overall adequate but with gaps.

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%, with each parameter already described in the input schema (e.g., query, type, series, limit, status). The description adds value by specifying the document collections but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for individual parameters. 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'search' and resource 'guidance documents', specifying the covered collections (Cyber Essentials, 10 Steps, CAF, etc.) and the return fields (reference, title, series, summary). This distinguishes it from siblings like gb_cyber_search_advisories which searches advisories, and gb_cyber_get_guidance which retrieves a single document.

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 for full-text search of guidance documents but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to search advisories or list frameworks). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and sibling list.

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