Search research guidance

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

The description adds significant context beyond annotations: explains the corpus is curated from senior researchers, warns about hallucination-prone nature of methodology questions, and describes the output (top-K excerpts with source attribution). No contradiction with readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

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 reasonably concise given the depth of guidance, with key information front-loaded. Every sentence contributes value (usage, alternatives, examples, output format). Minor redundancy could be trimmed.

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?

Given the simple input schema, rich annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers when to use, what it does, and what it returns. No obvious gaps for agent decision-making.

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?

Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description implies the limit parameter via 'top-K excerpts' and the query parameter is clear from context. Provides enough semantic meaning for an agent to understand usage, though explicit parameter mapping would improve.

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 that the tool searches a curated corpus of research methodology guidance for experimental design, evaluation, etc. It distinguishes itself from web_search by specifying its curated source, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this before recommending methodology, and provides a direct alternative (web_search) with reasons. Includes triggering questions to help the agent decide when to invoke.

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