search_guides

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does cover the important behavior: ranked top passages, per-passage citation label (guide, page), and an explicit empty-result case ("a note that nothing in the guides matches"). It does not mention result count limits, pagination, or corpus freshness, but the safety/behavioral profile for a read-only search is adequately conveyed.

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, front-loaded with the action and then the return contract. Zero filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 single-parameter, read-only search tool, the definition covers action, result shape, and the no-match case. Remaining gaps (how many passages are returned, whether the whole corpus is searched) are minor, and return values are separately covered by the output schema.

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?

There is one parameter (query) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. "Semantic search" usefully signals that query should be a natural-language phrase rather than keywords, but it adds no guidance on phrasing, length, or scope, and never names the query parameter.

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?

States a specific verb+mechanism ("Semantic search") over a specific resource ("the PDF guides"), and further pins down the output (top passages with guide/page citation and confidence). An agent knows exactly what it will get back without opening the schema; there are no siblings to disambiguate against.

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 word "semantic" implies this is for conceptual/natural-language queries rather than exact-match lookups, which is implicit routing guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., keyword search) — usage must be inferred.

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