search_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the broad scope (all topics) and the return type (context excerpts), but does not explain matching semantics, case/accent sensitivity, or response limits. This is adequate but leaves behavioral details unstated.

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?

One compact sentence contains the action, scope, and output, with no filler or redundant clauses. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 the description is mostly usable, but without an output schema or explicit mention of search behavior, an agent cannot fully anticipate the result shape. The overlap with search_snippets is also unresolved.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single termo parameter and the description simply restates it ('um termo'). No additional format, encoding, or matching detail is added beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Busca'), a resource ('todos os topicos do guia'), and states the output ('trechos de contexto'), so an agent can tell this is a full-guide search rather than a list/get operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling search_snippets, leaving possible overlap ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose search_guide over search_snippets or other siblings. The description implies a broad full-guide search, but it never names alternatives or says when not to use them.

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