search_guides

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search,' which suggests a read operation but does not confirm read-only status, nor does it mention result ordering, default behavior for the limit parameter, or what constitutes a 'guide.' There is no context about how results are returned or whether the search is full-text, keyword-based, or location-filtered.

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, tightly worded sentence with no fluff. It places the action and resource upfront, and the purpose phrase 'destination information and recommendations' adds useful context without wasted words. It earns a top score for brevity and readability.

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 search tool, the description combined with the schema gives a fundamental understanding, but it is incomplete in several respects: no guidance on what search queries work well, no return format or example output, and no behavioral notes (e.g., whether search matches partial text or tags). Despite having only two parameters, an agent would benefit from knowing more about result content to distinguish it from similar utilities.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'query' and 'limit' having explicit descriptions. The tool description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not clarify query formatting or edge cases for the limit, but the schema is adequate.

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 ('search'), a clear resource (Plantrip's travel guides), and the intended purpose (destination information and recommendations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on itinerary management, packing, or expert Q&A, making its role immediately clear.

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 its use for finding destination information, which gives broad context, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as ask_travel_expert or get_weather_insights. No exclusions or 'use instead of' guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer the right tool based on the surface-level purpose phrase.

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