hb_search_guides

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description reinforces with "sends nothing, needs no key" plus a concrete return format (snippet + resource URI) that annotations cannot convey. It doesn't state ranking behavior or what happens on zero matches, but the value-add over annotations is real.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, followed by scope and the knowledge-only constraint. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return format and the follow-up resource URI, and it clarifies the closed-world knowledge-only nature. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to act on results.

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% with an enum description for group and defaults/max for limit, so the schema already does the work. The description adds only the loose "by words" hint and example-style phrasing implied by the query schema, nothing beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search bundled guides) and names the return shape (best matches, snippet, and the hb://guides/<name> resource). It also enumerates the covered content (Hub API v2 and developer portal guides), which separates it from the sibling hb_search_operations tool that indexes operations rather than prose guides.

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?

"Knowledge only: sends nothing, needs no key" clearly frames this as the read-only lookup path for conceptual questions, distinguishing it from the call/operation tools. It stops short of explicitly saying when not to use it (e.g. use hb_describe_operation for exact request schemas).

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