rca_guide_search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the TF-IDF ranking method and the free plan result cap, providing useful behavior beyond the structured fields.

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 concise with a clear purpose sentence and organized Args/Returns sections. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary details, though the Args list could be more complete.

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?

The description provides return format details but omits the required 'token' parameter and does not differentiate from sibling search tools. Given the tool's many siblings and moderate complexity, it is adequate but has gaps.

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?

The description lists key parameters (symptom, equipment_type, tags, top_k) with numeric range (1-20), adding meaning beyond the schema. Although schema description coverage is reported as 0%, the description compensates by summarizing important params.

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 it searches the equipment knowledge base by symptom using TF-IDF ranking, which distinguishes it from siblings like rca_guide_get or rca_guide_list. The verb 'search' and resource are explicit.

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 mentions the free plan cap (3 results) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rca_guide_get or rca_analysis_query_results. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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