Search HIG

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden on its own. It usefully states what comes back (matching topics and official URLs, not full content), but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, ranking behavior, or pagination.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ending with the routing caveat. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

For a 4-param search tool with no output schema, it covers the return shape at a high level and routes to get_topic, but never mentions the platform or limit parameters and gives no sense of result volume or ordering. Adequate but leaves gaps an agent must resolve by reading the schema.

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 75%, so the schema already documents query, section, and platform. The description echoes title/section/alias matching and adds alias examples, but adds no syntax or behavior beyond the structured fields, matching the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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 (Search) and resource (the HIG catalog) plus what the query matches against (title, section, aliases). It also frames the boundary with get_topic, so an agent can tell it apart from a sibling even without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly states the negative case (does not return full articles) and names the alternative (call get_topic for those), which is real routing guidance. It stops short of clarifying search vs list_topics or get_design_reference, so it is clear but incomplete.

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