search_guidelines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of indicating behavior safely. It does disclose that the tool returns 'matching rule blocks with their IDs (R#)', which explains the shape of the output. However it omits details such as whether it is read-only, how many results are returned, or any limitations on query syntax.

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 only: the first states purpose, the second gives return format and a clear example. Every sentence serves a direct purpose with no fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action.

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?

For a simple one-parameter search tool with an output schema already defined, the description is nearly complete. It explains the input style and output format for typical searches. It still lacks usage guidance relative to siblings, which slightly reduces completeness.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 0% since the query string has no description. The description compensates by giving a concrete example ('tone course post linkedin'), which clarifies that the query is free-form text and likely case-insensitive phrase style. This is meaningful added meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 a specific action ('Search') and a precise resource ('company brand and editorial rules'). It distinguishes this as a search tool from the sibling tools (list_visual_templates, get_post_examples), though it could be more explicit about exactly how it differs.

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 does not say when to use this tool rather than the siblings. It gives no context, precedence, or exclusion. The example query implies usage, but an agent is given no guidance to choose this over the alternatives.

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