search_suitable_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 return format ('Top 3 matching guides with descriptions') and implies a read-only operation. Additional behavioral details like rate limits or data freshness are missing but not critical for a search tool.

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 well-structured with bullet points and clear sections, front-loading the purpose. It is concise, though the 'IMPORTANT' note adds essential context without being verbose.

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?

With an output schema existing (as indicated), the description need not detail return values. It sufficiently covers the two parameters, usage context, and distinguishes from siblings. The tool's behavior is adequately described for a search operation.

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 0%, meaning the schema properties lack descriptions. The description's 'Args:' section compensates by explaining 'query' and 'namespace', adding necessary meaning beyond the bare 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 'Find guides that match a task description', using a specific verb ('find') and resource ('guides'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'guide-level results, not chunk-level', differentiating from potential chunk-level searches.

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 explicit 'Use this tool when' scenarios and an important instruction to formulate queries in English. However, it does not directly compare with sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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