search_research_guidance_tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that by stating the result cap ('up to 8 cited snippets') and that no credentials, network requests or numerical analysis are involved. However, the 'up to 8' cap sits oddly against the limit parameter (default 5), and nothing explains citation format or how results are ranked.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no padding or repetition. The second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic but still earns its place by ruling out credential setup.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation here, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is parameter guidance at 0% schema coverage, which the description only partially addresses.

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% for both parameters, so the description must carry the burden of explaining 'query' and 'limit'. It only gestures at result size with 'up to 8', which is ambiguous next to the limit parameter, and says nothing about what a valid query looks like (keywords, aliases, phrases) despite mentioning aliases.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search local literature guidance and aliases') and states the return shape ('up to 8 cited snippets'), which is more informative than the bare tool name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as get_research_topic_tool or list_research_topics_tool, so an agent must infer the distinction from the word 'search'.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool searches local guidance and requires no AWS credentials or web access, which hints it is the offline/safe path for guidance lookups. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no sibling is named as an alternative, leaving the agent to guess how it differs from the topic-listing tools.

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