search_guide

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the result shape and ordering ('best-matching sections, most relevant first, each with the key matching lines'), but says nothing about whether results are truncated, how ranking works, or any permission/rate constraints; read-only behavior is only implied by 'Search'.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and examples, then the return behavior, then the routing hint. No filler.

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 the description needn't detail return values, and it still summarizes them helpfully. The one gap is 'max_results' and any note on result limits, which an agent sizing its query would want.

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%, so the description must supply semantics. It adds real meaning to 'query' via plain-English examples, but 'max_results' (default 5) is never mentioned anywhere, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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 the how-to guide') and scopes it to 'plain-English question or keywords', with two concrete example queries. It is clearly differentiated from the sibling search_code and points at get_guide_section for the follow-up step.

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?

Gives concrete example inputs and explicitly hands off whole-section reading to get_guide_section, so the use context is clear. It does not say when to prefer this over sibling tools like search_code, ask, or list_guide_sections, and offers no exclusions.

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