rca_guide_search

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly and idempotent; the description adds genuinely useful behavior: TF-IDF relevance ranking, a free-plan cap of 3 results, and the fact that both private and shared sample guides are searched. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and structured: purpose is front-loaded, scope follows, then Args and Returns are clearly labeled. No filler sentences.

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?

It covers search scope, ranking method, plan cap, and return shape. It is slightly incomplete because the Args summary omits token/client_id, but the nested schema and output schema supply most of the remaining detail.

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 Args section lists only symptom, equipment_type, tags, and top_k, omitting required token and defaulted client_id. It gives no types or constraints beyond the top_k range, and with 0% schema description coverage reported, the description does not carry enough of the parameter-documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the equipment knowledge base by symptom description using TF-IDF relevance ranking.' It also clarifies search scope (own ingested guides plus 4 shared sample guides), which separates it from sibling retrieval/list tools like rca_guide_get and rca_guide_list.

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 when to use it (when matching symptom descriptions against guides) and provides plan constraints, but it does not name alternatives or say when not to use it, such as when an exact guide ID is already known.

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