search_guides

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the dual server/local search path, the silent fallback on server failure, and the returned 'source' indicator. It does not mention rate limits or auth, which are minor gaps for a read search.

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?

Three dense sentences front-loaded with the core action, followed by mechanics and filters; every clause carries information about behavior or parameters. It is slightly crowded but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still notes the 'source' field and that next_offset is null when done, which aids pagination loops. Combined with filter and search-path coverage, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: subject accepts name or id, owner is a public profile name, guide_type gives concrete examples, and limit is capped at max 50 with offset-based pagination. This fully compensates for the undocumented 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search published research guides') with a scope qualifier ('published') that separates it from get_guide/get_guide_content. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so the differentiation is inferred from the search-vs-retrieve naming rather than stated.

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 clearly explains the conditional behavior (query present → server relevance search; absent or failing → local match), which is useful invocation guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like search_databases or get_guide, so usage is implied rather than directed.

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