search_guidelines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions the hybrid retrieval method, which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention any authentication requirements, or describe rate limits or side effects. This is partial transparency but lacks a clear safety profile.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It wastes no words and is easily scannable. This is ideal for conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is sparse for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations. It does not differentiate the tool from sibling search_clinical_trials, explain parameter semantics, or provide usage context. The minimalism leaves the agent with significant gaps in understanding.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameters. Parameter names like 'k', 'reason', and 'loinc_codes' are ambiguous without additional context. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema parameter descriptions.

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 action (search) and the resource (clinical guidelines), and specifies the retrieval method (hybrid BM25 + semantic retrieval). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling 'search_clinical_trials' by focusing on guidelines. This is a specific verb+resource statement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_clinical_trials, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name. This is a lack of explicit usage context.

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