search_guides

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavior load; it does disclose the corpus size and the shape of the result (titles + URLs), which helps. It says nothing about matching semantics (keyword vs topic), pagination or default/capped result count, or whether queries need exact topic names.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, packed with useful specifics (corpus size, return shape, citation intent). No filler to remove.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and what comes back. The only material gap is the unexplained 'limit' parameter, which leaves result-count control ambiguous.

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 0%, so the description has to compensate. It clarifies that 'query' is a topic, but the 'limit' parameter is never mentioned at all — no default, no maximum. Half the parameters are effectively undocumented across both the schema and the 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 gives a specific verb (search) and resource (Indian nutrition guides), plus the exact corpus size (1,152) and the return payload (titles with URLs). No sibling tool is a search tool, so the agent can distinguish this from compare_foods/get_product without opening schemas.

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 phrase 'for citation' implies when this is the right tool: the agent needs citable guide references. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, nor any note about what to do if the query returns nothing. Usage is only implied from the stated purpose.

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