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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: exact-name matches are ranked first, and results include provenance (source and licence) — useful signal about result ordering and trustworthiness that annotations do not convey.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Each sentence carries information (purpose, ranking rule, result provenance), though the whole is quite terse for a 4-parameter tool.

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 re-explained, and provenance/ranking are covered. But for a tool with 4 parameters, two enums, and 27 siblings including `search` and `get_by_name`, the absence of any routing guidance leaves the definition only minimally complete.

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%, with `limit` carrying no description at all, and the description mentions none of the four parameters. The `kind` and `version` narrowing options are left entirely to the schema, so the description adds no meaning beyond structured fields and does not compensate for the uncovered `limit` parameter.

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 WoW lore and Forever reference data"), so the agent knows exactly what corpus is queried. However, with siblings named literally `search` and `get_by_name` in the same toolset, it does nothing to distinguish itself from those alternatives.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing guidance. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this or the sibling `search` should be called for a given lookup, which is a significant gap given the near-identical sibling name.

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