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

The description details search behavior: case- and accent-insensitive matching, result ordering (exact names first, then prefixes, then substrings), and inclusion of aliases. It also lists the return fields. This gives a good understanding of what to expect, though it does not explicitly state read-only behavior (which is implied but not stated).

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 two sentences long and packs all necessary information without redundancy. It efficiently communicates the search scope, behavior, and output format, with no wasted words.

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?

The description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what is searched, how the search behaves, and what the response contains. It also appropriately directs to 'get_entry' for full details, making the tool's role in a larger workflow clear. No output schema is needed given the explicit field list.

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 description adds useful context for the 'q' parameter by explaining case-insensitivity and ordering, but does not elaborate on 'kind', 'lang', or 'limit'. Since the schema already provides descriptions for 'kind' and 'lang', the marginal add is limited. 'limit' lacks any description in the schema, and the tool description does not clarify it either.

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 that the tool finds encyclopedia entries by name across specific categories (metals, minerals, alchemical ingredients, potions, gems). The verb 'Find' explicitly indicates the search action, and the scope is well-defined, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 a pointer to 'get_entry' for full data, which is useful complementary guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with other search tools like 'search_tracks' or the various list tools, so an agent may need to infer when this is the appropriate choice among siblings.

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