search_privacy_guides

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search algorithm (BM25), chunk counts, doc_type selection, and automatic attribution. It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but being a search tool it is implied. Some behavioral aspects like rate limits or pagination are not covered.

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 appropriately sized with a front-loaded purpose statement, detailed doc_type breakdown, differentiation from law API, attribution notice, and sibling alternatives. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose in the doc_type list.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return format. It mentions automatic attribution and page info but does not specify the structure or content of results (e.g., snippets, metadata). Given the tool's complexity, this is a gap, but the detailed input schema partially compensates.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds significant value by detailing each doc_type enum with counts and dates, and specifying default and max for display, beyond what the schema provides.

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 performs BM25 search over 4 types of PIPC official guides with chunk counts and dates. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning alternatives like search_privacy_cases and search_law.

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 explains when to use this tool (for PIPC domain-specific guides not in law API) and provides explicit alternatives for cases and law. However, it does not include explicit when-not conditions or prerequisites.

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