pl_dp_search_guidelines

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 only describes the search scope and content coverage, without disclosing read-only behavior, rate limits, pagination, or any side effects. The term 'Search' implies safety but is not explicit.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds relevant context about document types and topics. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity, fully documented schema, and clear scope, the description is sufficient. It does not need to detail return values since the schema covers limit defaults, and the description provides enough context for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 full descriptions for all four parameters, including examples and an enum for type. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, 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?

The description clearly states 'Search UODO guidance documents' and enumerates the types (guidelines, opinions, recommendations, FAQs) and topics covered, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_decisions or get_guideline.

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 searching guidance documents, but does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives such as pl_dp_search_decisions. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving comparison to siblings implicit.

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