search_best_practices

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 tool's behavioral trait of searching across all guides and hints at efficiency ('without reading entire guides'), but it does not mention other important aspects like response format, pagination, rate limits, or error handling. The description does not contradict any annotations, as there are none.

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 and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the following sentences adding useful context without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying usage and benefits, making it efficient and well-structured.

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's moderate complexity (search function with one parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral traits like response format or error handling. For a search tool with no structured output information, more completeness would enhance agent understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'query' parameter well-documented in the schema. The description adds some context by listing example topics ('validation, security, performance optimization, error handling, or any development pattern'), which aligns with the schema's examples. However, it does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already covers, such as query syntax or limitations not in the schema.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Search across all best practice guides') and resources ('best practice guides'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_best_practice_guide' (which retrieves a specific guide) or 'get_available_best_practice_guides' (which lists guides without searching). It explicitly mentions what it searches for ('terms, patterns, or concepts').

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 provides clear context on when to use it ('when you need guidance on specific topics like validation, security, performance optimization, error handling, or any development pattern') and why ('Perfect for finding relevant best practices without reading entire guides'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as using 'get_best_practice_guide' for a specific guide instead of searching.

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