searchAchievement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search behavior ('partial name match') but doesn't describe other key traits: whether it's read-only or has side effects, what the return format looks like (e.g., list of achievements with details), pagination, error handling, or rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides usage context. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a search function with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral traits and output format. For a search tool, this is minimally viable but leaves the agent guessing about the response structure and other operational aspects.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'Achievement name to search for.' The description adds context by specifying 'partial name match,' which clarifies the search semantics beyond the schema. However, since the schema already provides good coverage, the description only adds marginal value, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Find specific achievements by partial name match.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('achievements'), and scope ('by partial name match'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'listAchievements' beyond the partial match aspect, which is why it's a 4 rather than a 5.

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 implied usage guidance with 'Helpful for tracking progress on particular challenges or hero mastery,' suggesting when this tool might be appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'listAchievements' (which presumably lists all achievements without filtering) or other alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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