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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the search spans 14 datasets and 9 languages and yields ids rather than full records, which tells the agent how to chain into get_entity. It does not discuss result ordering or truncation behavior when limit is hit.

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 front-loaded sentences (bilingual) that lead with the trigger and end with the return-value contract; no filler. The Chinese and English halves are largely redundant, but that redundancy appears intentional for routing and does not obscure the content.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating exactly what comes back (ids for get_entity), plus dataset and language scope. Combined with the schema documenting query/kinds/lang/limit, an agent has everything needed to call this search tool 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?

With 75% schema description coverage the schema already documents query, kinds, and lang, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds a partial enumeration of the dataset kinds and emphasizes cross-language querying, but it says '9 game languages' while listing only seven and never explains the 'is' enum value in lang, leaving a small gap and a mild mismatch.

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+resource ('search ... any FFRS equipment, skill, enemy, quest, item, vision, map, shop, trophy by name, ID or keyword') and scopes it to 'all 14 datasets across all 9 game languages'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_entity by declaring that it 'Returns ids to feed into get_entity', so an agent can tell the two apart 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?

Provides a clear triggering condition ('Use when a user asks about any FFRS entity by name or keyword') and implies the follow-up flow via get_entity. It stops short of explicit exclusions or alternatives for siblings such as find_drops, find_sources, or lookup_label, which an agent would have to infer.

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