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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses match ranking (exact, then prefix, then substring), alias inclusion, case/accent insensitivity, and the return shape (kind, id, one-line summary, url). It does not mention result limits/pagination or any auth considerations, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing, with the resource scope front-loaded before the return/next-step information. The first sentence is dense and long, but every clause adds routing value.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the hit fields and the follow-up tool. It omits default limit behavior and pagination semantics, which are the main remaining gaps.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema handles most fields, but the description adds real meaning for q beyond 'the name or part of it' by specifying the matching algorithm and alias handling. It adds nothing for kind, lang, or limit defaults, keeping it below 5.

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?

Specific verb ('Find') plus a concrete set of resources (metals, minerals, potions, gems, animals, plants, plus Hearth/Passage/Bearer reference pages) scoped by name matching. It clearly differs from siblings like list_entries or random_entry, and it explicitly names get_entry as the follow-up tool.

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 routes the agent to get_entry for full data, which is explicit alternative guidance. It lacks a negative clause (e.g. when to prefer list_entries or list_facets instead), so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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