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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It discloses a significant behavioral trait (20 calls/day per IP rate limit) and indicates the return type (basic info list). However, it does not address other behavioral aspects such as exact/partial matching, empty result behavior, or ordering, which would be valuable for an unannotated tool.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the action, searchable fields, return type, and a key operational constraint are all included without padding.

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?

For a simple search tool with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers query semantics, return type, and rate limiting. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on how this tool relates to sibling tools like get_pal_info, but this is not critical for basic usage.

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 100% and both parameters have descriptive text. The description adds the allowed search fields (name, id, element) and clarifies the limit's default, but these largely overlap with the schema descriptions. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, the description adds only marginal semantic value.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource (Palworld Pals) and search dimensions (name, id, element). It also states that it returns a 'basic info list,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pal_info that likely provide detailed individual data.

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 implies when to use the tool (when searching for Pals by name/id/element) and adds a free-tier rate limit as practical context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like get_pal_info or find_breeding_routes, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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