search_guides

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the scope (290+ guides, topics, languages) and the return format (quick answers with URLs), but does not disclose additional behavioral quirks like query matching behavior or error conditions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the action and scope. Every word adds value—count, network, topics, languages, and output type—with no redundant 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?

Given the read-only nature, openWorldHint, and the query-focused design, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose, scope, languages, and return format. The absence of an output schema is compensated by describing the output. It could be slightly richer by addressing when to use it vs. sibling tools, but that is a minor gap given the schema and annotations.

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 67%, with query and lang described. The description adds semantic context by listing topics ('loans, mortgages, credit cards, credit scores') that map to the 'site' enum, and by noting 'English and Spanish' for the lang parameter. However, it does not fully explain the 'site' parameter values or add syntax examples, so the added value is moderate.

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 290+ editorial guides'), a defined resource (ITIN finance network), and the output ('quick answers with canonical article URLs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_guide (which likely fetches a single guide) and faq_lookup (which targets FAQs) by emphasizing cross-guide 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?

The description implies usage: use this tool when you need to search across many guides for a quick answer, rather than retrieving a specific guide or looking up lenders. However, it lacks explicit 'use instead of X' or exclusionary language, so it falls short of a full 5.

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