search_charactersSearch the Disney character database by name (e.g. "Mickey Mouse", "Elsa", "Stitch"). Returns matching characters with their film, TV-show, video-game and theme-park-attraction appearances plus an image URL. Matching is exact-ish on the name field.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Character name to search for, e.g. "Mickey Mouse". | |
| limit | No | Max characters to return (default 10). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, nondestructive. Description adds that the tool returns appearances and image URL, and that matching is 'exact-ish', which clarifies behavior beyond annotations.
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 concise sentences front-loaded with purpose, examples, and return spec. 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?
Despite no output schema, the description adequately explains return fields (appearances, image URL) and matching behavior. However, it does not reference sibling tools or describe ordering/pagination, leaving minor 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 covers both parameters (name, limit) with descriptions. The description adds 'exact-ish' matching qualifier for name, and examples demonstrate usage, adding value beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states the tool searches the Disney character database by name, with examples and brief return spec. It distinguishes from exact match tools (e.g., get_character) by noting 'exact-ish' matching, but does not explicitly contrast with list_characters.
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 implicitly says to use this tool for name-based search and gives examples, but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. siblings (get_character, list_characters) or conditions to avoid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a highly distinct purpose, from Disney character lookups to financial data and prediction market analysis. Agent can easily distinguish them by name and description.
Naming conventions vary wildly: some use verb_noun (list_characters), others are phrases (ask_pipeworx) or compound nouns (polymarket_arbitrage). No consistent pattern across tools.
34 tools is far too many for a Disney-themed server. Only 3 tools (list_characters, search_characters, get_character) relate to Disney; the rest are general-purpose data tools that belong elsewhere.
For a Disney server, the tool surface is severely incomplete. Missing basic CRUD for characters, no info on movies, parks, or media. Extraneous tools do not fill these gaps.