Search confirmed guidance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the constraint that results are restricted to confirmed (not draft/proposed) guidance, which is genuine but modest additional context.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse given the gaps, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the response, yet it says nothing about what a match looks like, ordering, relevance ranking, or how `limit` behaves. For a search tool with two undocumented parameters, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 only 33% – only `query` is documented in the schema. The phrase "within a workflow" hints at the `workflow` parameter's role but never explains its identifier format or purpose, and the `limit` parameter is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb ("Find") and a well-defined resource ("the principal's confirmed guidance") scoped to a question and a workflow. The word "confirmed" usefully distinguishes this from adjacent concepts like proposed lessons, though no sibling tool is named explicitly.

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?

It implies the context of use (looking up guidance for a question inside a workflow) but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never references an alternative such as twin_brief, twin_next_questions, or twin_review_queue. The agent must guess which of the twelve twin_* tools to reach for.

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