search_cpg_guidelines

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions the search sources (PubMed, TSPTA, GIN, etc.) which gives some transparency about the scope and data sources. However, it does not disclose details like whether the search is real-time, cached, or rate-limited, or what happens if no results are found.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the second sentence could be slightly more structured to improve 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (all with schema descriptions), no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the search scope and sources. It is complete enough for a search tool, but additional details about the output format or behavior when no results are found could improve completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., condition, body_region, max_results). The description focuses on the tool's purpose and sources, not on parameter details.

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 explicitly states the tool searches for clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recognized internationally and in Taiwan, specifying the PubMed Practice Guideline filter and additional sources (TSPTA, GIN, NICE, APTA). The verb '查詢' (search) with resource 'CPG' is clear and unambiguous.

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 this tool is for CPG searches, but there is no guidance on when to use it versus siblings like 'search_pedro_evidence' or 'search_pt_laws'. No explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions are provided, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the tool names.

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