ch_cyber_search_guidance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns documents with specified fields, implying a read-only operation. However, it doesn't disclose behaviors like pagination, sorting, performance considerations, or authentication requirements. For a search tool, the description is adequately transparent but lacks depth.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and expand on coverage and return fields. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. The structure is clear and easy to parse.

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?

The description is nearly complete for a search tool: it specifies what is searched, what is returned, and mentions the document types. However, it lacks details like default ordering, result count limits, and whether the search is full-text (implied). Given no output schema, the description provides a good overview but misses minor behavioral context like pagination or query syntax.

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% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds context about the overall search scope but doesn't provide additional semantics for individual parameters beyond what the schema already states. For example, the query parameter's language hint is already in the schema. The description is not necessary for parameter understanding, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 full-text search across NCSC-CH guidelines and technical reports, listing specific document types (ISB standards, NCSC-CH recommendations, etc.) and the fields returned (reference, title, series, summary). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ch_cyber_search_advisories (which searches advisories) and ch_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: use this to search for guidance documents. It covers a broad range of document types, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ch_cyber_search_advisories. The purpose alone provides sufficient context for an agent to select it when searching guidelines, but explicit when-to-use guidance would improve the score.

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