search_guides

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses result limits (up to 10), result compaction for guides, pass-through for other types, volatility of results ('never cached'), parameter mapping to API fields, and licensing restrictions (CC BY-NC-SA). This exceeds typical descriptions.

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 well-organized and front-loaded: it starts with purpose, then return format, then usage, then parameter details, and ends with licensing. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The structure—a brief overview followed by a bullet-like Args list—is 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, multiple result types, API mappings), the description covers all necessary context: query syntax, result structure, limits, volatility, and licensing. An output schema exists but the description already provides return value details, so the context is fully complete.

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 0%, but the description's Args section fully compensates by explaining every parameter with types, examples, defaults, and API mappings. For instance, it clarifies that 'device' maps to guideDevice, 'lang' to langid, and doctypes accepts a specific value list. This is highly informative.

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 the resource 'iFixit's catalog for repair guides (and other content types)'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it returns multiple result types and mentions the device parameter for scoping, which separates it from list_device_guides and get_guide.

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 usage context: how to use the device parameter to scope results, how doctypes restrict result types, and the lang parameter for localization. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives (e.g., 'for a specific device use list_device_guides'), but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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